| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contents
- 1 J'aime aller a la peche
- 2 Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
- 3 ITN recognition for Geoffrey Hayes
- 4 Geoffrey Hayes image
- 5 Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
- 6 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations)
- 7 Please comment on Talk:USATC S160 Class
- 8 This Month in GLAM: September 2018
- 9 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
- 10 ITN
- 11 Chicago Fire redirect recreation
- 12 Woodhead, Hamilton, Scotland
- 13 ITN research
- 14 Editing News #2—2018
- 15 Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
- 16 ARBCOM?
- 17 This Month in GLAM: October 2018
- 18 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 19 Article unblock
- 20 WMUK techies
- 21 Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
- 22 Your statement
- 23 ArbCom
- 24 ArbCom statistics
- 25 Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum
- 26 This Month in GLAM: November 2018
- 27 Merry Merry
- 28 ITN recognition for Paddy Ashdown
- 29 Yo Ho Ho
- 30 Merry Christmas!
- 31 merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019
- 32 Merry Christmas
- 33 Happy New Year, Thryduulf!
- 34 Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
- 35 Polyisobutylene
- 36 Unclosed RfD
- 37 This Month in GLAM: December 2018
- 38 VisualEditor
- 39 2019
- 40 DYK for Rose v Royal College of Physicians
- 41 Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
- 42 ARCA notice
- 43 Re:Manchester meetup
- 44 This Month in GLAM: January 2019
- 45 In case it helps
- 46 Thanks for closing
- 47 Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
- 48 Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
- 49 This Month in GLAM: February 2019
- 50 X3 proposal
- 51 Please comment on Talk:Century
- 52 Polyisobutylene (2)
- 53 Deletion sorting at MfD?
- 54 Arbitration Notice
- 55 Please comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)
- 56 Xenophobia
- 57 Nomination of Portal:English language for deletion
- 58 Talkback
- 59 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)
- 60 Discussion
- 61 Portal Issues RFArb
- 62 Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
- 63 ANI Help requested
- 64 This Month in GLAM: March 2019
- 65 RfC close on Talk:Ministry of Transport
J'aime aller a la peche
For entertainment, a Napoleonic marching song - J'aime l'oignon frît à l'huile.
(It may be time to do some archiving, your Talk Page is getting laggy.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Narky Blert: I'll take a look at that video after I've done some archiving. Then I'll try and figure out why the awards are taking up the top of the page rather than being a side bar... Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- You might like Template:Barnometer as a less flamboyant way of bragging. Narky Blert (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- They used to be (and should still be) in a narrow column on the right hand side of the page so they are not flamboyant. Unfortunately at some point the code that did this has stopped working and I can't figure out why or how to get it to work again. I've asked at the help desk for assistance from someone more skilled than me. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- You might like Template:Barnometer as a less flamboyant way of bragging. Narky Blert (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Narky Blert: I'll take a look at that video after I've done some archiving. Then I'll try and figure out why the awards are taking up the top of the page rather than being a side bar... Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I like all peaches too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and added a source to back up your recent addition to September 30. Please try to find sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: Thanks. On this occasion, I was just moving the listing added to 1 October by Sfyffecollins and didn't think to check if it was cited or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Geoffrey Hayes
Geoffrey Hayes image
The copyright warning you placed on File:Geoffrey Hayes.jpg claims that there is "no evidence of attempts to find a freely licensed image". Short of videoing myself diligently searching on CC Search and Google images (which I just did this morning), I don't see how I can satisfy that burden of proof. Suffice to say: I looked, I couldn't find anything. Cnbrb (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- What else have you done to see if there was a freely licensed image or an image that could be changed to be freely licensed? Have you enquired anywhere whether people have photos of him not yet uploaded would be willing to do so under a free license? If they had been dead 10 years that would be different, but the presumption that a freely licensed image is or could be available doesn't magically end at the moment of death - it gradually fades over a period of years. You also have not addressed the second point at all - we don't use free use images for simple identification. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Having to wait 10 years before posting an image of a deceased person is a new one on me. I haven't seen that rule on Wikipedia, but maybe I've missed something. I researched free images as described above, but no, I haven't contacted individual people. Should I be writing to Thames TV? Does Wikipedia actually expect editors to go to those lengths? I consider my efforts a reasonable level of research; I drew a blank and uploaded in WP:good faith.
- On your second point, I think you mean non-free images? And if we don't use non-free use images for simple identification, why does the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard offer that option? "This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive. This is an historic photograph or other depiction of a person who is no longer alive. It will be used as the primary means of visual identification of that person in the article about them." Is it just setting editors up for a fall? Cnbrb (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Six months is typically what we'd wait before uploading images of people before they're cold. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've complained previously about that upload wizard option. Yes it is setting people up for a fail if they use it for people who are only just dead - it should have a note that six months post-mortem is about the earliest you will get away with, but it depends how prominent the person was, how recent they were active in public, where they were (someone living in central London is more likely to have been photographed than someone living on a private island in the Seychelles or a village in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or someone who was in prison for the last 25 years of their life). Geoffrey Hayes only retired a few years ago, was living in the UK and right until the end he spoke of still being recognised - did nobody take his photograph? By all accounts he was a very nice and friendly person so would likely have posted if asked - especially when doing shows. Have you enquired whether the copyright owner of this photograph on Twitter will release the photo under a free license? Find that took less than 5 minutes, so there are likely others out there that are less easy to find. Maybe his agent will release a photo under a free license if asked a respectful time after the funeral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK i take the point. It would just be nice to have some more reliable Wikipedia guidelines to that effect. WP:NFCI makes no mention of a reasonable timescale after death. At the moment, it's far too easy for a good faith addition to Wikipedia like this to be result in a rap over the knuckles, which is bound to put off newbies (fortunately I've been around for years so I know the score). Perhaps you might consider inputting your views into getting the guidelines updated so it's a bit clearer. Go ahead and delete Geoffrey. I'll, er, zip up now. Cnbrb (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you about the guidelines, but I've long given up trying to get anything related to fair use images changed to make things clearer for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with our polices and guidelines in the area. I do enough shouting in to the darkness in favour of readers and new users at RfD, I don't have the energy to do it there too, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, FYI: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Images of deceased persons, now a formal RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you about the guidelines, but I've long given up trying to get anything related to fair use images changed to make things clearer for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with our polices and guidelines in the area. I do enough shouting in to the darkness in favour of readers and new users at RfD, I don't have the energy to do it there too, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK i take the point. It would just be nice to have some more reliable Wikipedia guidelines to that effect. WP:NFCI makes no mention of a reasonable timescale after death. At the moment, it's far too easy for a good faith addition to Wikipedia like this to be result in a rap over the knuckles, which is bound to put off newbies (fortunately I've been around for years so I know the score). Perhaps you might consider inputting your views into getting the guidelines updated so it's a bit clearer. Go ahead and delete Geoffrey. I'll, er, zip up now. Cnbrb (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
- Justlettersandnumbers • L235
- Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
- Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333
- Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
- There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
- Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
- Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
- The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
- The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
- Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
- Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:USATC S160 Class
Please see my comment there. Tony May (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2018
|
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
ITN
You’ve left the Soyuz pic but removed the blurb. Stephen 10:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- What's the procedure for this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Remove the image, no suitable picture that I can see, so image-free ITN. Stephen 10:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Done, sorry about that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Actually, are you OK with protecting a satellite image of Leslie, and using that? I’m on mobile otherwise I’d help. Stephen
- Or if you’re not confident in that, you may want to re-add the last removed item for balance. Stephen 10:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Done, sorry about that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Remove the image, no suitable picture that I can see, so image-free ITN. Stephen 10:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Chicago Fire redirect recreation
I'm not sure you saw the rationale that @Tavix: used when deleting the redirects that you created, but hey were initially created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Anything that a blocked user creates via sockpuppetry should be deleted. Local consensus should not overrule block evasion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: I'm not sure you saw the part of my rationale where I stated that
Anyone in good standing may recreate
. The block evasion has been taken care of by my deletion of the redirects, but it doesn't preclude someone else from creating what they see as a valid redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC) - (edit conflict) @Walter Görlitz: Firstly pages created by users in violation of a ban may (not must) be deleted. Secondly, as Tavix explicitly noted in his closing summary, any editor in good standing is free to recreate content that was deleted because of its author. The consensus of the discussion was clearly that these are good redirects, but if you disagree strongly then nominate them at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I saw and wholeheartedly disagree. I have had this argument before and just give up debating it, but you've just made a sockmaster happy by having him get his way. I expect absolutely no action from you because you are chanting the "redirects are cheap" mantra. If you don't agree, fine. I hope you buy another sociopath a cup of coffee to make their day they way you've made this sockmaster's day. No need to ping me to reply, I disagree with your position as much as you disagree with mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fair assumption to make since the sockpuppet didn't create the redirects outright, they were the result of a couple of page moves. The sockpuppet wanted the title of Chicago Fire Soccer Club to be Chicago Fire (soccer club), but they didn't get what they wanted since the article was moved right back. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I saw and wholeheartedly disagree. I have had this argument before and just give up debating it, but you've just made a sockmaster happy by having him get his way. I expect absolutely no action from you because you are chanting the "redirects are cheap" mantra. If you don't agree, fine. I hope you buy another sociopath a cup of coffee to make their day they way you've made this sockmaster's day. No need to ping me to reply, I disagree with your position as much as you disagree with mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Woodhead, Hamilton, Scotland
Hi, with regard to the above, I created a multiple merge proposal for several unreferenced stub articles of neighbourhoods in Hamilton. The IP user (nothing to do with me) did the merge a month later, I know that's considered a bit soon for such actions but given the minimal activity on the article it was unlikely that anyone was going to look at it and bring it up to scratch so I was happy enough. There was nothing added to the parent article as the Woodhead information was trivial (it has houses of uncertain age, a pub and a bus route) as well as unsourced, it would not add anything of value. Could you please review this and either restore the merge or give me a shout explaining why it shouldn't happen. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Crowsus: I have no opinion on whether the merge should or should not happen. My focus was on cleaning up the mess left by the IP user who redirected a couple of dozen articles (of various lengths and qualities) with an edit summary that indicated content had been merged. However in no case had any content been merged, so the edit summary was misleading and information was lost from the encyclopaedia. If there has been no opposition to a merge advertised on both pages after a decent time (circa three months should be fine, obviously you don't need to wait that long if there is active support for a merge) then go ahead and perform the merge (remembering to correctly attribute the content, see WP:MERGETEXT). If there is no information to merge, then make it clear that what you doing is redirecting not merging. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK no problem thanks, I'll leave it til the end of the year and then (assuming no change) redirect; I think some of the other articles had a bit more info (but not enough for standalone article) so if adding into Hamilton will add+attribute for as appropriate. Crowsus (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
ITN research
Thanks for doing such a good and objective job there. Not only does it inform the current discussion, but it provides really useful evidence should this ongoing silliness rear its head again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I intend to complete September so there is a full month to refer to, and if I get time, work backwards from there too. I don't plan on doing October until there is a bit of distance for objectivity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Cool, it's so much better to have objective evidence than just instinctive reaction to rely upon. Keep up the great work, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Editing News #2—2018
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.
Recent changes
- The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
- The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles. You can read the report.
- The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
- The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar. You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
- The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
- The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images. It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published. [1]
Let's work together
- The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
- The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
- If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!
— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
ARBCOM?
Hi Thryduulf, could you please please please consider running for ArbCom again? We really need people like you on the committee, and you were an excellent, fair, knowledgeable, no-drama Arb. Please consider serving again. Right now there are only three people running to fill six positions (and only one of them is an admin). The deadline for nominations is a few days from now. Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I hadn't really considered it this year, but will think again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2018
|
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Article unblock
Hiya, as I mentioned, I would like an admin to unblock the page 'Frisco (rapper)' so that I can create it with the text in my sandbox. --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jwslubbock: I've moved the draft to Frisco (rapper) and added some basic categories, but I don't know if more/better ones are needed. I've left the other history at your sandbox. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
WMUK techies
Hi, who are the techies at wmuk:? I've left a note at wmuk:Engine room#Watchlist broken but the page doesn't seem to attract much traffic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- An email to wikimediauk-l will probably get more (and the right) eyes on it. -- KTC (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
- Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
- Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike
Interface administrator changes
- Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
- A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
- A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.
- Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
- To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
- Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.
- Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
- In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
- Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
- Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Your statement
To my knowledge, jytdog is not an administrator, don’t think he ever was one either. Your Arb request statement makes this claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Literaturegeek: a slip of the brain that I've now corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom
You are mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrator_BU_Rob13_at_WP:ARCA and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom statistics
Hello, Thryduulf,
I just stumbled across Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute which I find fascinating but then I like to read 10 year old ArbCom cases to learn about the development of the Wikipedia community. Do you think you will be keeping this page updated? Anything I can do to help? Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to update it please do - it's not something I have any ownership of after all (it's in project space for a reason). It's not high on my list of priorities at the moment so I wont likely be getting back to it soon, but never say never. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum
(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2018
|
Merry Merry
Happy Christmas! | ||
Hello Thryduulf, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
ITN recognition for Paddy Ashdown
Yo Ho Ho
ϢereSpielChequers 23:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Thryduulf, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas
--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Thryduulf!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
- There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:
- G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
- R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
- G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
- The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
- Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
- Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
- At least 8 characters in length
- Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
- Different from their username
- User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
- Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
- {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
- Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.
- Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
- Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Polyisobutylene
I saw your complaint about polyisobutylene. "The article isn't perfect by any means - as a non-chemist it tells me almost nothing and it didn't link to either of the above targets". Here's the deal: I dont aim for perfection. My first and often my only goal is to mount something credible for experts with an authoritative reference. From such skeletal articles, we slowly add more information over timet. From the short article, a non-expert can glean that polyisobutylene (i) is a polymer (ii) made from isobutene, and (iii) somehow associated with plasticizers and adhesives. That should be enough information for 99% readers, but if you can think of something else that is needed, please say so. Thanks for making the links.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- That criticism seems to have come across more harshly than I intended, for which I apologise. I agree there is more for non-experts than I implied - thank you for starting the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Unclosed RfD
Take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_31#Spicy_meatball. I was about to close it as No Consensus, but noticed you removed the RfD tag on December 31st, apparently having closed it as Retarget, but the discussion remained open at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18 and was relisted by Deryck Chan (ping!). Thoughts all? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Amory: My close as retarget edit conflicted with Deryck relisting it. I asked for his opinion on his talk page but the reply came too late for me to do anything (I was mostly offline for a few days) and then I forgot about it. I wouldn't close it as retarget now, based on what has been said post-relisting but I still think there was a (weak) consensus to retarget before then but retargetting was also entirely appropriate. I don't know what the best solution is, but as no-consensus doesn't preclude a bold retargetting leaving it as and reclassifying my action as bold might work? Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2018
|
VisualEditor
Since this doesn't really have anything to do with the arbitration case, I'm responding here. I've never used VisualEditor;(*) I'll presume it does a reasonable job at editing tables without disturbing hand-crafted style markup. This was a few years ago but I'll guess that VisualEditor's handling of tables has been stable for a while now. (*) My first preference is to revert undesired edits to ensure none of the desired content is touched. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
2019
Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Rose v Royal College of Physicians
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
- Enterprisey • JJMC89
- BorgQueen
- Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley
Interface administrator changes
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
ARCA notice
An arbitrator has proposed a motion on a clarification request to which you are a party. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#The Troubles: motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Re:Manchester meetup
Hi! Thanks for the invitation. It sounds great! I have signed up. If you also want to have a beer before June 2019, I won't object. :) --Góngora (Talk) 04:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- June is the first time I'm likely to be in the northwest but I'm at the London and Oxford meetups most months! Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Noted. :) I will probably see you there then. We are also planning to run an edit-a-thon here at the University of Manchester library in mid-March. --Góngora (Talk) 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Góngora: Feel free to set up another meetup. There are Wikipedians around the north west or within easy reach (there used to be a dozen or so of us who would meet for a pint every couple of months but several of us moved away or got busy in our personal lives). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point - if you want to set up a Manchester meet to happen before June just move the page I started to /37 and fix the links. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I am a bit busy with my PhD to organise something like that (and I am already involved in the organisation of the edit-a-thon in March). I was thinking about something more informal, but thank you both for the suggestion, and thanks Thryduulf for taking the initiative. See you in June. :) --Góngora (Talk) 15:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point - if you want to set up a Manchester meet to happen before June just move the page I started to /37 and fix the links. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2019
|
In case it helps
Hi Thryduulf, your statement reminds me of this case. I'm not sure if that is the case you were trying to remember though.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for closing
Thanks for closing the CRAPWATCH RFDs. They've been interfering with navigation for over half a month now. It was maddening. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Feel free to recreate the talk page shortcuts if they're used, leaving the {{old rfd}} notes below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why, were they deleted? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I see. Yeah I've updated those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- There isn't a good way to have both a note of an old RfD discussion and a working talk page redirect. I figured that as nobody mentioned the talk pages (and had to create one anyway) I'd just put the template there and let the redirects be recreated if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I see. Yeah I've updated those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why, were they deleted? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
I appreciate you got an edit conflict so didn't perhaps read why I wrote above your text. But WP:NOTCENSORED is clearly in the "Encyclopedic content" and not the "Community" sections of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Perhaps you could read what I wrote, and reconsider some of what you wrote. -- Colin°Talk 21:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Ha, I got an edit conflict with you posting on the MfD. And it seems we reach similar conclusions. -- Colin°Talk 22:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
- checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
This Month in GLAM: February 2019
|
X3 proposal
I suggest reading WP:CLOSE and not trying to buck the obvious. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am familiar with WP:CLOSE and note that the proposal is still under active discussion with points in opposition that have not been addressed by supporters. You also need to remember that editors may not remove speedy deletion templates from pages they create. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely I can request you take it to TfD. As an Admin you should be able to assess consensus not running interference on a proposal that has passed. The template is clearly labeled as being for testing, and is needed for setting up twinkle correctly. No one is using it and no one needs to be bothered by it. Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- As an admin I can asses consensus and can tell that the discussion has not concluded and there are concerns that have not yet been addressed. If you wish to contest the speedy deletion of a page you have created then you need to do it in the same way that every other editor: explain on the talk page why it should not be deleted. CSD criterion T2 explicitly applies to speedy deletion templates for things that are not speedy deletion criteria. Testing of CSD templates can only come after the criterion is formally approved, if it is approved. I should not be needing to explain this to someone so experienced, but it seems you are so determined to get these pages deleted you have forgotten that you must get explicit consensus to do so first. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely I can request you take it to TfD. As an Admin you should be able to assess consensus not running interference on a proposal that has passed. The template is clearly labeled as being for testing, and is needed for setting up twinkle correctly. No one is using it and no one needs to be bothered by it. Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Century
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Polyisobutylene (2)
Hi. The Polyisobutylene page has a RfD tag which seems to be a leftover from a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Polyisobutene, which you started and closed, so maybe you know what to do with this one? If not, I'll open a RfD. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nabla: My guess is that I meant to add it to the same RfD as Polyisobutene given they had the same target but maybe forgot? I don't have time to investigate further at the moment, but it probably is worth discussing so the best thing is probably to just overwrite my failed nomination with a new one for today, leaving a message for the Chemistry project. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion sorting at MfD?
I've never seen that before. Can you point to some policy that allows this or are you just being novel? Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: It's uncommon, but nothing I've ever seen about deletion sorting indicates that it is not allowed to be used on any particular type of discussion - indeed why would it be? Informing potentially interested editors in a neutral manner is generally encouraged - a well attended discussion leads to a stronger consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Xenophobia
I didn't want to comment (seriously) in that drama-ridden thread, but I did want to tell you that your analysis and the way you expressed it was close to perfect.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, although the whole dispute could seriously do with some attention from uninvolved admins. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:English language for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
North America1000 00:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
I noticed your comment at ANI. I would prefer for the header about me to remain separate, rather than intermingled with another discussion. As such, the thread about me will remain as such, rather than as a subsection in another section about other matters such as "Legacypac and portals" and "Admin OhanaUnited behavior". My actions are not related to those threads. North America1000 12:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OK, I'll strike that part with a link here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your consideration, and happy editing. North America1000 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal Issues RFArb
This is a courtesy notice that the portal issues RFArb has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
ANI Help requested
Could you please give some assistance to this thread on ANI? It's going around and around and going nowhere. Full disclosure, I got your name from the ANI history as you were the last admin to edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:43 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: March 2019
|
RfC close on Talk:Ministry of Transport
Thanks! No, really, I’m not coming to have a whinge – it’s exactly what I would have done.
I’m annoyed there’s no resolution though, given that there was an RFD I withdrew because of this confusion, and an RM at Talk:Department of Transport (Victoria, 2008–13) which attracted no discussion apart from me asking that it wait on the RfC. So if you have any suggestions on how to move forward (in a non-disruptive manner, obviously) I’d be grateful. Government instrumentalities are a niche topic, even on a website devoted to niche topics, so a lack of interest is always going to be an issue, but it’d be nice to find a productive resolution. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)