User:The ed17/Archives/112

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Sparkzy's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Home Lander (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2017

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue III, March 2017 Headlines Argentina report: Images donation Australia and New Zealand report: Serving up Citations Basque Country report: Children Literature project's second edition Belgium report: Open Belgium; Just For The Record; Staff from libraries educated Bulgaria report: First museum photo-thon in Bulgaria Côte d'Ivoire report: Editing during International Francophone Contribution Month France report: Workshop in Berlin; WikiTrain in Rennes; Edit-a-thon at the National Archaeological Museum Germany report: Change Your mind Italy report: Art+Feminism in Italy... and maps Macedonia report: Macedonian voivode and Rivers in Macedonia Netherlands report: Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform; photohunt Egmond aan Zee; Iconographia Zoologica Spain report: Wikipedia course at La Yutera Library Sweden report: Art+Feminism 2017; Connected Open Heritage; Digikult; Art on Wikipedia; Writing about Gothenburg's history; Updating image description with new research results UK report: Wicipop project in Wales; Wikimedia UK's impact report USA report: Art + Feminism Open Access report: Over 600 new multimedia files, e.g. on embryos, robots and bouncing water droplets Wikidata report: More maps, more features, more properties, more data! WMF GLAM report: Wikimedia Conference Calendar: April's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Intentions

What exactly are your intentions "best" for by making a comment like that at the RFA, and not in a personal email? Please expound, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind I don't care what your excuse is... You can shove that entire (sly) aspersion casting comment up your ass. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC) I've struck my highly emotional response... I would just ask that you refrain from talking about me at all, on any of our noticeboards (including RFA/RFPP etc), unless you have an urgent need to. I would appreciate that, if in the future, you would bring any concerns you have about me directly to my talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please be civil. Jonathunder (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Coffee, you're very right—the frustration comment should have been said as a personal email to you. I'm sorry that I did not do so, and I will keep this conversation in mind in the future. On the aspersions comment, I stand by it as a general statement but would emphasize that it was not intended as an indictment upon you. That's why I added the parenthetical aside. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you can see past my hot temper this morning... it was just ticked off from the comment about nominators being on an RFA I nominated, instead of the general Wikipedia talk:RFA page. Regardless, I don't believe you acted in malice. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: I've suffered far worse. ;-) You're getting enough flack today and I don't want to add to it. I do, however, want to say that from the wider view, we could really use less comments like those if we want to attract new editors to our stagnant community and improve its toxic reputation in the wider world. Let's avoid the own goals. :-) Anyway, cheers; see you around the wikis. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Vigilante-ism

Hi Ed, apologies if you inferred that I was calling you a vigilante. That was not my intention. Let me list four incidents over the last six months to give you a sense of what I mean, and what is starting to p... me off. There was the editor who was going around changing formatting. Generally he was right and I learned from that, but he was also a little wrong on one thing, and after I pointed that out, we are good. However, then there were the two guardians of Notability. One caused to be deleted a small ship article I wrote. Because vessels often share names, sometime when I find things out about one vessel while researching another I still create an article with what I have. I am an inclusionist and eventualist with respect to WP and in general I hate throwing away info. Articles that are not notable are a problem in dead-tree space but not on WP as no one will find them unless they are specifically looking for them, or near relatives. The biggest vigilante was the editor, who has since stopped editing, who decided to post requests for rapid deletion on a number of articles that he felt were not notable as an experiment to see if anybody cared. I did, and then had to waste time fending him off and undoing some of the damage he caused. Lastly, we come to the chap that Brad and I were concerned about. The reason I reverted him without comment was that he was wrong, and also, if he had thought about it would have seen that what he was demanding didn't make sense. To require a photograph as a condition of B Class status for articles that deal with vessels whose lives ended before the invention of photography is a symptom of someone who is enforcing rules without thinking about them, and in this case, rules he made up/misunderstood. Anyway, cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And another case of drive-by-vigilantism just surfaced. See:Bank of Central and South America.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"if he had thought about it would have seen that what he was demanding didn't make sense" – yes, but that's something a simple sentence can (... normally) solve. :-) On notability and the bank, sigh. I'll go comment on their talk page. Overly hasty new page patrollers have been an on-again off-again pain point in the community for many years now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. And I should, probably, have been more temperate and will try to follow your example and be so in the future. Though I do wonder if a sound bollocking may fend off more deletionism in the future than kind words. I did try that once to no avail, but will try again. Cheers.Acad Ronin (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They don't always have to be kind words. My guiding model is polite but firm, especially when they've made a bad mistake—I might be able to cogently argue my case and reverse the decision, but many others aren't as familiar with the rules, and I wouldn't want something similar happening to them. :-) Thank you for hearing me out with an open mind. I really appreciate it. Cheers, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey QatarStarsLeague, when do you think you'll be able to get to the review? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Marcel Deslaurens

Hey Ed, any chance you or one of your MILHISTers can help me out? Terminology, links, templates, WikiProjects... (Y'alls WikiProject templates, I'm not touching them: too many parameters!) This guy actually deserves to be on the front page, but I have yet to find the good sources in Google Books. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Looks like someone got to the templates. :-) The article rather requires some knowledge of the geography of northeastern France/Belgium/the Netherlands, no? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I added "French warships" to replace "French Navy ships" but I suspect that may not be correct. It may be that the evacuation was done using merchant ships. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)