User talk:Bilby/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 19 |
IGI Global
That journal. Check it out. It is quarterly, costs in excess of $500 per year, and each issue contains only a handful of articles, mostly by the editorial board. I could not find it in the journal citation index: it does not seem to have an impact actor. IGI Global is well known as an academic vanity press: this may be resume inflation or it may be IGI looking for halo effect, but it is controversial, so requires an independent source. Affiliated primary sources are only acceptable for uncontroversial content, as you know. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- My issue was with your removal on the basis that the source did not support the "emeritus editor" claim [1]. I checked the source, and it states that he is emeritus editor. You are also incorrect about it not having an impact factor, and the publisher is not on Beal's list. I'm also hard pressed to see how the subject being an emeritus editor of a journal is controversial. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Bret Weinstein
Hi Bilby, would you have kept my page about Bret Weinstein had I included more info about his work in the field of Evolutionary Biology and his recent appearances with Jordan B Peterson and Sam Harris? I'm asking so that I can improve the page and make it follow the guidelines. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunkworks22 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The deleted content was still WP:BLP1E. I don't think anyone is unaware of Weinstein's epic bout of whitesplaining, but the AfD was pretty much spot on IMO and this is well covered in the Evergreen article. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Korstanje
Have the socks been emailing you? They have me, demanding inclusion of the usual resume-padding. I'm not inclined to proxy for them, especially given the number of socks now blocked. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, I have not been contacted regarding the article, except for the messages here which you reverted. - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Igi global is not vanity press. It is indexed in web of science clarivate list 181.14.180.61 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This book is not in the wikipedia biography Peter lang s the 6 ranked most important published of the world per SPI rankking list.
Tracing Spikes in Fear and Narcissism in Western Democracies Since 9/11. https://www.peterlang.com/view/product/84732?format=HC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.14.180.61 (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
he is editorial board member of two important journals, ranked as Q1 in Scopus Scimago. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality. EMERALD Journal of Destination Marketing and Management. Elsevier.
Robert. 181.14.180.61 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: January 2018
Volume 7 | Issue 1 | January 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
The Signpost: 5 February 2018
- Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible
- Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles
- Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative
- Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues
- In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations
- Humour: You really are in Wonderland
Has a very extensive "criticism" section, but the latest item seems well past "undue" to me, and you might wish to take a look there. I left a message on the talk page, but the BLP already has had problems in the past, and you might gain from gazing at it once more. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
OnePath Network Article
Hi, Bilby
For OnePath Network, (I admit it's a paid job, and it's the only paid one out of my 15 articles and +300 edits on various Wikimedia projects). But I tried to be as neutral as possible.
- The first paragraph: Simple words about the company + how they publish their content + a brief of their work.
- History: a simple introduction to the company's fundraising, no details.
- Growth: Statistics from sources + Mentioning Main three members of team + 2 examples of reception earned by other prominent newspapers.
- Content: Formal briefing of their programs.
- Interviews: Neutrally giving examples of exclusive interviews made by the network.
- Presenters: Stating names of presenters.
- Awards: Plain mentioning of awards earned.
I used many sources (The Guardian, HuffingtonPost, ABC.Net, DailyMail, Daily Telegraph, Governmental websites and others).
- Note 1: I searched for similar approved published Wikipedia articles (about Islamic online networks) to make this new one, I found AJ+ and followed it.
- Note 2: I added Paid Contributor disclosure.
- Note 3: (Update): I made some edits, removing what might be considered promotional or info that is not able to be verified.
Thanks in advance and sorry for any disturbance.
عليّ سعيد (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
- News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators
- Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back
- Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases
- Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain
- Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history
- Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks
Do you have any suggestions about how I might help beyond writing articles
I am retired and might enjoy volunteering after years of working many long hours under stress in the IT industry. I read widely (mostly non-fiction and science related) and have thought about editing articles about books I have enjoyed, but not sure that Wikipedia is the venue for that, as Amazon, Goodreads, etc. seem to have taken precedence in Google.
Do you have any suggestions.
Thanks.
Gregorybarry (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
:I know thw stress of working in IT. :) I'll try and write a proper reply tomorrow (I'm currently stuck with some tight deadlines due very soon so I can't spend much time here), but there's always lots of little jobs that I find need doing - from cleaning up prose to checking copyright concerns. Some are more painful than others, but there's lots of jobs worth doing. To be honest, though, I think the most rewarding is working on articles, especially with others. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Editing News #1—2018
Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition
Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?
Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.
If you enable the Beta Feature for "⧼visualeditor-preference-visualdiffpage-label⧽", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.
Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.
In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.
This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.
Recent changes
- The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
- The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [2]
- Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [3]
- The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.
Let's work together
- The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
- Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
- The
<references />block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either<references />or the plain (no parameters){{reflist}}template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [4] - If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!
—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: February 2018
Volume 7 | Issue 2 | February 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Capitals00 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Courses Modules are being deprecated
Hello,
Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.
Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
12 years of editing
|
Hey, Bilby. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
- News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.
- Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.
- Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers
- Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs
- Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.
- Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.
- Humour: WikiWorld Reruns
RevDel might be needed
Hello, Bilby. I noticed that, earlier today, you removed an edit summary from the article on Andrew Wakefield, describing it as a "serious BLP violation". A few hours later, the editor who posted that summary repeated it on the article's Talk page (as seen here). It was removed (by the same editor) a few minutes later, as seen here.
If that summary was serious enough to remove from the article's page history, it seems serious enough to remove from the article's Talk page history, as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- As this consists of deleted comments, I've passed it on to the oversight group and we'll see what they think, along with my earlier revdel. - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response. It might be helpful to note that the editor restored those comments to the Talk page, with this edit. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: March 2018
Volume 7 | Issue 3 | March 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
The Signpost: 26 April 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again
- Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost
- In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop
- In focus: Admin reports board under criticism
- Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide
- Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias
- Discussion report: The future of portals
- Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History
- Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March
- Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
Catherine Deveny - Anzac days comments
Please do not engage in an edit war over this section. If you could discuss the section in the talk page. Given Deveny's recent comments on AnZAC day were mentioned in various newspapers in Australia, I think it entirely reasonable they are included in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- We can leave the section for the moment, but we need to make it WP:BLP compliant. - Bilby (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd like to make it balanced with her stated arguments, and any counters for those, to achieve WP:BLP. In her recent discussions about ANZAC day, she has proposed a number of criticisms, and some of the media had made counters for those, eg claiming that being a soldier is no more dangerous than being a roofer. I'm also going to add in some more references. She has been engaging in comments about anzac day for some years now, in a number of different media, and it has achieved notoriety, so its no longer just a one off twitter comment, perhaps as portrayed in the article previously - IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
PromoAffiliates
Hello! I would like to ask about the previously deleted page about PromoAffiliates, as it was very recently the subject of deletion, as was the page of what appears to be the subject's founder. I am trying my best to hop around and fix notable pages marked as "advertising", and would like to ask for you input on PromoAffiliates and Aaron Leupp (I hope I spelled that right). After some googling, it seems that resuscitating PromoAffiliates is worth the effort, but as always, I want your input on whether I should do it or not and if there is anything in particular that happened before that I can attempt to avoid this time around (I can't access the deleted page). The reason I ask if it's worth it is because it appears that the page was created by a sockpuppeteer and (Maybe?) a paid author, so I don't want to jump in and do work on a page that has no business being here.
Thanks again for your help! WikiSniki (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Both articles were made by paid authors, and per WP:PAID you will need to meet the terms of use and disclose your connection with the client if you decide to do any work on these. Neither appears to be viable at the moment anyway - in particular, the Aaron Leupp article was recently deleted, and it would be unlikely that things have changed enough to warrant a new article this soon after the AfD. - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for your help! I'm not paid or anything, but I like to target articles that are mentioned for AfD because of biased language or advertising. I'll give PaidAffiliates a try because it seems to be notable enough, but I'll try to keep you posted if I have any questions about it. Thanks again! WikiSniki 14:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Shokugeki no Soma
Hi, I'm just trying to find some way to indicate the very prevalent fanservice aspect of this series in an objective manner. I don't think anyone should be able to read through this entire article and then be surprised by the more mature content in the actual manga or anime. Evidently ecchi is not a genre recognized by wikipedia, which I thought would be the easiest way to note this, barring that I thought those lines from the cited review would do. Can you tell me why you disagree with that more specifically? I feel I was quite literal in how I paraphrased it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23B0:F2D0:8469:DED4:6C13:C59A (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- The reviewer's concern was not with the orgasms, but with the use of apparent sexual molestation by tentacles in cases where the food is distasteful. So I wanted to be a bit more careful with the wording. I'd be inclined to change the comment to the tentacles, but that isn't really ecchi as such, and is only a small part of the series - having a moment of something distasteful isn't exactly unusual, but the reactions to the good food is a major part of the series and seems more significant. I'm surprised to learn that Wikipedia doesn't recognise ecchi - we should fix that - and I agree that this needs to be mentioned, I'm just not sure on the best way to do it. I'll try to help once I finish with some commitments in the morning, though. Maybe we can come up with something? - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate your reply, and I acknowledge that I did cut some corners there in the interest of not taking up too much space on that subject. I added the "in spots" part to indicate that the reviewer wasn't necessarily put off by every instance. You're right that that isn't the best way to get that across because it would need to be noted what those instances were. In any case I agree it probably would be more informative not only for this series if ecchi was a recongized genre. I'm not really a frequent editor at all so I definitely would appreciate your advice at least finding a way to make a mention of this on this article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23B0:F2D0:8469:DED4:6C13:C59A (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @ above, for the show, if a scene did shown that for a moment, (a few seconds) and only once, then.. It is best to leave out. If it was to show the reaction from that "one scene." And if it was throughout the show. (Say if a 12 episode show and it has short scenes related to that, then if a genre that closely fits it. Can only be added if by a ref/ source.) Other than that, the edit from here showed this, <ref>{{cite web|title=Crunchyroll Ecchi Anime|url=http://www.crunchyroll.com/videos/anime/genres/ecchi}}</ref> as a link/ url to something that lists a bunch of shows to whatever genre it belongs to, isn't really o.k. to add... Then if one used a ref/ source just directs to a listed web-site that may have that peculiar genre(s) and all of its episodes, it isn't widely used like that. Under certain WP:MOS, etc.
- But if a ref/ source does say it, like this one http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2017/03/21/harem-light-novel-isekai-wa-smartphone-to-tomoni-gets-tv-anime-adaptation-this-summer as this show has "harem." Then it is o.k. to add that named genre. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Tainted-wingsz, I can understand that distinction. I really just wanted any feasible way to make that aspect of this series known, and I apologize for using an unsuitable reference. Would crunchyroll's page for the anime, which does have ecchi tagged as one of its genres, be more appropriate? I realize now that would have been a better starting point, the way I chose was a bit backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23B0:F2D0:8469:DED4:6C13:C59A (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's just that, the named genre or "phrased word genre" on the wiki. It only tells it is a type of "slang", and not a genre. As it might fit under a different genre, but same concept. While I'm only one person, there might be others with their own opinions on that. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Tainted-wingsz, I can understand that distinction. I really just wanted any feasible way to make that aspect of this series known, and I apologize for using an unsuitable reference. Would crunchyroll's page for the anime, which does have ecchi tagged as one of its genres, be more appropriate? I realize now that would have been a better starting point, the way I chose was a bit backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23B0:F2D0:8469:DED4:6C13:C59A (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: April 2018
Volume 7 | Issue 4 | April 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
Review
Hello! Sorry to bother, but I recently posted a new page at AngelSense that I would like to be looked over by you because I've seen you all over the place and you really seem to know what you're doing! I'm trying my best at creating new pages and I want to be sure that I'm doing it right (no subjective language, advertising, etc.) especially because it's a company page. Thank you so much for your help, I really appreciate it! WikiSniki 16:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Zhang Wei
Hello Bilby, can you please check if Zhang Wei (painter) is a recreation of Zhang Wei (Chinese artist) you nominated for deletion years back before I add the old AfD template on the talk page. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 13:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Your Help Needed
At some point I intend to run for admin, do you think I have any chance? If not, what do you think I need to do? Thank you very much --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
outside chance
you might be still on - [5] looks like an interesting trail there JarrahTree 01:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- It does - I'll look into that. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- spy vs [ spy - i suppose wikipedia as a battleground hasnt been somethng I had thought would occur on little old innocent austraian content JarrahTree 01:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Sat'a'dee
Oh dear! I completely forgot. I hope you enjoyed yourself. Hopefully I'll remember next time and see you then. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
some issues
That we have talked about away from here seem to be arising in all of the places South_Australian_Chamber_of_Mines_and_Energy, I am not sure my messages are being read or understood - thanks JarrahTree 05:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just got your email. I'll have a look and see what I can do once I get this lot of marking done. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- This has become such a mess, I now recuse myself for any further presence there, it is as though there is no interest in reading the messages or replies, or understanding WP:COI, WP:RS, and subsequent editors work simply has shown there is really no interest in understanding. If you are not able to go there - I hope an interested third party or an admin can make a sound decision. Thanks for replying. JarrahTree 11:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have a bit more work to do here, but I'll do my best as soon as it is done. - Bilby (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- sorry to have bothered you - there had been an opportunity for the exercise be for a learning process, it seems more combative than collaborational, which is sad - it could have been a positive experience. JarrahTree 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try and see if we can work something out - the problem is timing, as if I don't get this job done I'll be in massive trouble come the morning. - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: seems to have roped me in. I don't seem to have been able to do anything useful. Good luck, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try and see if we can work something out - the problem is timing, as if I don't get this job done I'll be in massive trouble come the morning. - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- sorry to have bothered you - there had been an opportunity for the exercise be for a learning process, it seems more combative than collaborational, which is sad - it could have been a positive experience. JarrahTree 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience, appreciated. JarrahTree 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Do with this whatever you like:
- It's nice to see that at last you are replying. The next step would be for you to pay attention to what has been said to you and for you to reply to those comments.
- The content appearing about SACOME on Wikipedia is outdated. - It has been pointed out to you that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that records facts and history. It has been pointed out to you that facts that become out of date become history. This is NO reason to remove data that was once fact and is now history.
- As i have been trying to edit the information - No, you haven't been "trying". You have been removing. This is called censorship.
- its strange that the the old content keeps reflecting back - Why do you think this is strange?
- i am not permitted to delete the below sections despite they being non relevant to the brand which i explained earlier in my remarks - Working backwards: no, you haven't explained; no, facts ARE relevant; no, you're not permitted to delete facts.
- DIRT TV awards happened. They were sponsored by SACOME. They are historical facts. They are relevant.
- Advocacy. Ditto.
- Image of CEO: Are you trying to tell me he wasn't the CEO?
- Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
New request
Hello, Bilby!
I have cleaned up the language on Eddie Rosenstein to make it neutral. Could you be so kind as to reconsider the COI template, please? Many thanks ahead of time for your attention to this. TK FoOC (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: May 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 5 | May 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
What on earth was that about?
Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right to die, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inalienable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 June 2018
- Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?
- Op-ed: What do admins do?
- News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania
- In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress
- Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page
- Featured content: New promotions
- Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed
- Traffic report: Endgame
- Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa
- Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry
- Humour: Television plot lines
- Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors
- From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing
This Month in Education: June 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 6 | June 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
Undelete request
Hi Bilby, an article created by User:Danimations on The Cliffs Golf Resort on Kangaroo Island was deleted back in January, IMHO mistakenly, given the strength of public opposition to the proposed sale of sensitive Crown land for the development. The sale was blocked by the Weatherill government, but following the March election a lease over the land was approved by the incoming Marshall government, and the issue remains controversial. Can you please undelete the article as a draft in my userspace? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Done. :) It should be at User:Bahudhara/The Cliffs Golf Resort. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! It may take me a little while to get around to fixing it, but it was a hot topic on a recent visit to the island. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on this, gents. I agree that the topic is noteworthy and will only continue to grow in noteworthiness. --Danimations (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guild Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Guiler Wars Suggestion
I didn't revert 184.175.47.145 on Guilder Wars because I don't want to be involved in any edit war. But it doesn't mean I endorse their edits. I directed them to the consensus reaching page about whether Guilder Wars is or isn't a MMO and warned them. JC7V-constructive zone 05:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
USS Joseph K. Taussig (DE-1030)
I see you deleted this page last night under G12 copyright infringement. I of course can't see the page now but it strikes me as unusual that a page on such a subject would be copyvio. I am wondering if the cause was text copied from DANFs or Hazegray which are open public sources which we are allowed to use? Lyndaship (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The wording rang some alarm bells, and I found duplicate text in the wayback machine that predated it and claimed copyright. However, I was also concerned that it might have come from elsewhere, as similar articles I could find the public domain source, so I was checking into that when I read your message. As you thought, there was another public domain source that predated the copyrighted source that predated our article. :) Sorry for any problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Satanic ritual abuse
The IP address editor was back and there may be more to revdel. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Peter Dutton
Please put this article on indefinite or 1 year instead of 3 days, because once 3 days ran out, the IP vandals will at it again, and there's high chance that Dutton will become PM in another party room meeting soon. Protecting a high conflict article is sooner better than later. Thanks 202.161.64.247 (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2018
- From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia
- News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend
- In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles
- Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
- Special report: Wikimania 2018
- Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits
- Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work
- Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies
- Humour: Signpost editor censors herself
- From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words
This Month in Education: August 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 8 | August 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
You deleted the earlier version of this article as work of a sockpuppet. There was another draft, with different content, in draft space. It has now been accepted. Can you please check that none of the listed authors (before me and SmokeyJoe) were known sockpuppets of the blocked or banned user? Thanks. Also, I have requested undeletion of the deleted page to my email so that I can improve the current article. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I was just writing a reply on AFC. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, well. A strange sad story. Sad among other things that someone in Taussig's family, who is hiring the paid editors, doesn't have his honor. (I wouldn't expect paid editors to have honor, but one can hope for it in the family of a naval hero.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Paddy Steinfort
Hi! I think you closed the deletion discussion for Paddy Steinfort way before its intended relist period. The relist typically lasts for 7 days. Also, the deletion consensus in its form now doesn't truly reflect the discussion. I think it may be wise to reopen the discussion. Bradgd (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- It had gone well past the date it would normally be closed, and the new influx of paid (and block evading) editors was going to do nothing but mess it up even more. - Bilby (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- The relist was on 2 September. It should be closed 9 September. Still, none of those who voted a 'Keep' are blocked. I still think it is the right thing to reopen it. Bradgd (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- It has been open for almost a month, and the !votes have pretty much settled. At the same time, two more paid editors have just been hired to vote keep, along with potentially others. I'll write a full rationale, but if we keep this going all we'll do is give time for more people to be hired, and I can't see any new arguments emerging at this point. - Bilby (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- How were you able to determine that they are paid? If so, is that an excuse to close a discussion before its date? The discussion in its form without much evidence serves a 'No Consensus'. Bradgd (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from - personally, I'm generally loathe to play the IAR card, and in a normal situation I would have let this run out until the end. The problem is that with the advertisement still active and more people being employed, it is only going to get uglier and create a worse situation for the client. The advertisement is on Upwork, as was the original job to write the article. So far, four editors have been hired directly to edit the article - three to vote, and the original to create it - and a fifth person has been hired to work on background. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Without much evidence, I think the closure has no point and you are being fanatic just because you don't feel their argument that the article should be kept. What I'd advise is you reopen the discussion, block paid editors if any(given you have strong evidence) and strike their votes. Bradgd (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from - personally, I'm generally loathe to play the IAR card, and in a normal situation I would have let this run out until the end. The problem is that with the advertisement still active and more people being employed, it is only going to get uglier and create a worse situation for the client. The advertisement is on Upwork, as was the original job to write the article. So far, four editors have been hired directly to edit the article - three to vote, and the original to create it - and a fifth person has been hired to work on background. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- How were you able to determine that they are paid? If so, is that an excuse to close a discussion before its date? The discussion in its form without much evidence serves a 'No Consensus'. Bradgd (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- It has been open for almost a month, and the !votes have pretty much settled. At the same time, two more paid editors have just been hired to vote keep, along with potentially others. I'll write a full rationale, but if we keep this going all we'll do is give time for more people to be hired, and I can't see any new arguments emerging at this point. - Bilby (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- The relist was on 2 September. It should be closed 9 September. Still, none of those who voted a 'Keep' are blocked. I still think it is the right thing to reopen it. Bradgd (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Typo
You might want to clarify your comment at the BLP talk page, everything was very well said and I agree with you 100%, but you also added this incomplete sentence "If this is what the proposed wording"
below you comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 October 2018
- From the editor: Is this the new normal?
- News and notes: European copyright law moves forward
- In the media: Knowledge under fire
- Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom
- Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile
- Gallery: A pat on the back
- Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?
- Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle
- Essay: Expressing thanks
Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Administrator changes
Justlettersandnumbers • L235
Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
- Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333
Oversight changes
- Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno
Guideline and policy news
- 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.
Technical news
- 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.
Arbitration
- 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.
This Month in Education: September 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 9 | September 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
RfC withdrawn and restated
You had !voted at an RfC. I withdrew and restated it. See RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Your recent SPS edits
Hi, I'm JoJo Anthrax. Could you explain why you have recently chosen to remove citations to Retraction Watch, claiming the citations are "not needed?" I note that Retraction Watch has been found to be a RS and, in my opinion, the citations you have removed from Marc Hauser and Ariel Fernandez are rich in relevant content. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've been informed that Retraction Watch is a self published source. Is that not the case? - Bilby (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is not the case. Retraction Watch is published by the Center for Scientific Integrity, an organization with a board of directors and independent funding (e.g., a MacArthur grant). Editorial oversight is provided by two professional journalists with expertise in science reporting, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, who also author many of the articles. There was a discussion of Retraction Watch at the Reliable Source noticeboard a few years ago, with the consensus being that it is indeed a reliable source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to interject a point that is often lost in these types of discussions, that RS and SPS are not mutually exclusive, some SPS are RS (expert blogs for example) but SPS are not acceptable for BLP content, even if they are RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Concerns have been raised elsewhere that this is an SPS. If not, that's fine. However, I have only removed it in cases where there is better source available for the claims. There's not typically a need to have two references, if one reference fully supports the claim and is not even remotely questionable. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hm. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks to Bilby and the others for your comments.
- Again, and as can be verified at the Retraction Watch (RW) site, RW is not a self-published source. Speaking to Tornado chaser's comment, exclusivity of RS and SPS is thus not an issue here. Could you refer me, Bilby, to the "elsewhere" at which the SPS concerns about RW have been, or are currently being, raised?
- Regarding your other comment, could you also, for the edits being discussed here, identify the objective criteria that render the sources other than RW "better?" Additionally, I am unaware of any WP policy or guideline indicating that citations to single RS are preferred to multiple, independent RS. It is certainly true that for a given item sourced to USA Today, for example, it is unnecessary to also cite outlets from within the Gannett company, as the latter are likely to be highly similar to, if not cut-and-paste replicates of, the USA Today story. But that is not the case with the RW reports which, as you will know from reading them, are independent. Lastly, and in general, RW articles contain information often absent from other sources; e.g., detailed coverage of the investigatory mechanisms at the relevant institutions. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The issues around Retraction Watch seem complex. Recently I've seen claims here that it is an SPS, and there are very mixed opinions on the subject when working through the WP:BLPN and WP:RSN archives. On the other hand, I agree that it doesn't appear to be an SPS. Most of the arguments I've seen as to why it is ok are based on how their claims are sourced. Given that, we have the option of either using Retraction Watch to with some questions remaining about its status for BLPs, or in cases where it is only being used in a BLP to source a statement along the lines of "this paper was retracted", just use the unquestionably reliable source of the original journal, which sidesteps the problem.
- As to reliability, I think we can say that the journal which published the statement "this paper was retracted" is more reliable (as in, less likely to make an error) than a secondary source which says "that journal retracted this paper". Given that the second source is republishing what was in the first, the first is the most reliable of the two. This is the same as why we'd choose to go to the original source for a quote, rather than using a quote of a quote - I've seen people try the latter, only to find that second source they found was misquoting the original. If the original is available it would be the safer route. - Bilby (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Concerns have been raised elsewhere that this is an SPS. If not, that's fine. However, I have only removed it in cases where there is better source available for the claims. There's not typically a need to have two references, if one reference fully supports the claim and is not even remotely questionable. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to interject a point that is often lost in these types of discussions, that RS and SPS are not mutually exclusive, some SPS are RS (expert blogs for example) but SPS are not acceptable for BLP content, even if they are RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is not the case. Retraction Watch is published by the Center for Scientific Integrity, an organization with a board of directors and independent funding (e.g., a MacArthur grant). Editorial oversight is provided by two professional journalists with expertise in science reporting, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, who also author many of the articles. There was a discussion of Retraction Watch at the Reliable Source noticeboard a few years ago, with the consensus being that it is indeed a reliable source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. I am pinging several editors who in the past have commented on this, or a related, issue/topic in various fora, and I thank them in advance for tolerating my presumption and for any comments/advice/wisdom they can add to this discussion, either here or at other article talk pages (see below). @Stuartyeates:@Nomoskedasticity:@Jytdog:
- I have reviewed the various archived WP:BLPN and WP:RSN discussions involving, directly or indirectly, Retraction Watch (RW). The discussions I found date to 2015 and earlier. I do not see the complexity that you apparently do. What I do see are discussions for which a clear majority of discussants identify RW as a reliable source. Those in opposition to the use of RW as a source on enWiki were, for the most part, either operating under the false assumption that RW is a SPS (which you now also recognize is a false assumption), or the editor disliked RW because they were themselves a subject of RW articles; that is, Ariel Fernandez and his IPs and sockpuppets. In none of those discussions have I read any suggestion that RW is in any way inferior to other, "better" sources (using your term).
- You earlier expressed a preference for using single sources, but I remain unfamiliar with any enWiki policies that favor the use of single sources over multiple, independent sources. I have not read anything in the earlier discussions that suggests RW is not independent, and in my earlier comment I explicitly noted that RW typically provides substantially more extensive and detailed information about the topic than other sources. It is precisely those features of RW articles that make me believe the pages for Marc Hauser, Ariel Fernandez, and List of scientific misconduct incidents have not been improved by your removal of citations to RW.
- Although I understand the point, I do not agree with your primary v. secondary source argument of reliability to justify removal of RW citations in favor of brief, typically content- and context-free 'this-paper-has-been-retracted' announcements from journals. If I understand your argument correctly - of course I might not - and if we take major crimes associated with BLP as an example, according to your model enWiki should ONLY cite press releases from the relevant police departments/district attorney offices (what you term "original" sources of fact) and no media sources that report such crimes. I believe most editors would reject such a model, and if it was widely adopted the encyclopedic value of enWiki would be significantly weakened.
- Lastly, and returning to the original good faith edits at issue, I am going to revert them in the next day or so. Along with those reverts I will also create sections on the relevant talk pages so that community consensus for the edits can be reached. I thank you for your civility and willingness to engage in this discussion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ultimately, I have no interest in edit warring over this. I think that where we provide a retraction watch link we should, at a minimum, also provide a link to the published source that retractionm watch relies on, but that should be acceptable whatever happens.
- I am surprised that you do not see the issue in teh discussions, though./ For example:
- WP:RSN discussion: generally supportive, but Dr. Fleischman opposed, stating that w=e should just use their sources instead.
- WP:BLPN More about using it as a source about a lawsuit, some discussion of reliability in general. Decision was not to use it.
- WP:BLPN: same issue as above, no consensus to use
- WP:BLPN: same article, slightly different issue. Short and the OP was blocked as a sock. However, other editors expressed concerns that Retraction Watch is an SPS.
- There are some minor mentions elsewhere, but are you sure that this shows that it isn't complex, and there are no concerns? Certainly a number of people support its use, but equally it has had some opposition - my thought was that we could fix this by relying on the reliable sources used by Retraction Watch, rather than Retraction Watch itself. It side steps any debate while retaining the claim we are wishing to support. That said, if Retraction Wacth is not an SPS, and it has sufficient editorial control, I have no problem with its use. I think we'll find that this has changed over time, but I'm perfectly ok with using it if the story was published with editorial control instead of being an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks once again for your response. I remain unconvinced that there is "complexity" in those discussions with regard to evaluating Retraction Watch as a SPS (it is not, despite your use of the word "if" above), a reliable source, or even a good source. In most of the relevant discussions those expressing concerns are in a minority and include people with obvious COI (i.e., Ariel Fernandez). We also disagree with the notion that sourcing Retraction Watch should require that other sources also be provided - there is no debate that needs to be sidestepped. I doubt, however, that either of us will convince the other at this point. So let's see if consensus can be reached at the various pages...hopefully without any "complexity" arising from Ariel Fernandez's sock drawer. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been on holiday) We should definitely use retraction watch references. Almost all the retraction watch posts are secondary sources (a few are house keeping, etc which are not) and the encyclopedia is built on secondary sources not primary sources. They are the acknowledged experts in their field. Sometimes they're citing sources that are primary sources for the information and sometimes secondary sources which may or may not be used as well (and definitely should be if there's a direct quote). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks once again for your response. I remain unconvinced that there is "complexity" in those discussions with regard to evaluating Retraction Watch as a SPS (it is not, despite your use of the word "if" above), a reliable source, or even a good source. In most of the relevant discussions those expressing concerns are in a minority and include people with obvious COI (i.e., Ariel Fernandez). We also disagree with the notion that sourcing Retraction Watch should require that other sources also be provided - there is no debate that needs to be sidestepped. I doubt, however, that either of us will convince the other at this point. So let's see if consensus can be reached at the various pages...hopefully without any "complexity" arising from Ariel Fernandez's sock drawer. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 October 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely
- News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks
- In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias
- Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform
- Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring
- Technology report: Bots galore!
- Special report: NPP needs you
- Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six
- In focus: Alexa
- Gallery: Out of this world!
- Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion
- Humour: Talk page humour
- Opinion: Strickland incident
- From the archives: The Gardner Interview
Reply re: COI
Hello, and thanks for the post on my talk page. I appreciate the concerns, but I am only a subscriber to the magazine. I am merely using it as a source of new information to add to existing Wikipedia pages. There is no conflict of interest. I understand that this approach has dominated my editing lately, but I do have other projects in the works. It is just that these edits involving SI have been the ones to fit into my time constraints. Thanks again for checking in! Drobertpowell (talk) 13:31, 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
Did you know?
Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?
Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.
You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.
Remember to publish your changes when you're done.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
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. [6]
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 contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!
— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- 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.
Technical news
- 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.
Arbitration
- 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-en
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
This Month in Education: November 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 10 | October 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Bilby. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies !
Apologies for the mess I've made on your talk page! There was some mix up on the clerks mailing list about which user was to be added to the case request. Feel free to trout me for it. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: November 2018
The Signpost: 1 December 2018
- From the editor: Time for a truce
- Special report: The Christmas wishlist
- Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee
- Arbitration report: A long break ends
- Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight
- Gallery: Intersections
- From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis
Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Administrator changes
Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz- Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- 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.
Technical news
- 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.
Arbitration
- 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.
Miscellaneous
- 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.
Obituaries
- 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.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| For your good work keeping BLP vios (and POVs) out of articles, even when difficult. Also, thanks for starting the discussions related to harassment policy Tornado chaser (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
happy christmas
from the oz west - trust the new year is a good one! JarrahTree 00:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
David Wolfe
Stop vandalising Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with Snopes and Forbes as references. I'll report you and get others to if you keep trying to mess up articles. Cls14 (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Forbes contributor articles are self published, as they don't have editorial control. According to WP:BLPSPS, we can't use self published sources to make claims about living people except for their author, so we can't use the Forbes article to make claims about Wolfe. I agree about Snopes being more reliable, however Snopes only says that he posted a meme - it doesn't say that he believed the meme to be true - and it directly quotes Wolfe stating that it was not meant to be taken literally. Thus both fail BLP in this situation. I did explain all of this on the talk page, if you woudl like to take part there. - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2018
- From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- News and notes: Some wishes do come true
- In the media: Political hijinks
- Discussion report: A new record low for RfA
- WikiProject report: Articlegenesis
- Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case
- Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents
- Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone
- Blog: News from the WMF
- Humour: I believe in Bigfoot
- Essay: Requests for medication
- From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again
Merry Christmas!
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- 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.
Technical news
- 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.
Arbitration
- Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.
Miscellaneous
- 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.
Reply re: Refspam
Hi Bilby. I am attempting to add new information in good faith from a reliable source, which I happen to have in hand, in order "to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." If you have issues with specific additions because you think they fail to do what I intend them to do, fine. But reverting additions because they happen to generally cite a particular reliable source is not warranted by this policy. Rather than acting in the interests of the journal, I am acting in the interest of adding good information which happens to come from this journal. Nor is this my only project.
In short, as the policy states, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." Drobertpowell (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This Month in Education: January 2019
Korean Administrators
Hello,
I am from a FANDOM community and, long story short, some of the spam I have been dealing with has bled over to the Korean Wikipedia. I do not speak Korean so I was wondering where I could find a list of administrators there so I can report the spam and have them initiate the deletion process because the article in question is unsourced and the one source it does provide verifies almost none of the article. The only list I could find was on Metawiki and it was old. I left a message on ChongDae’s wall, but I am not sure if he will get it since the talk page was on Metawiki.
Thanks,
CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2019
- Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
- Discussion report: The future of the reference desk
- Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity
- Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope
- Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther
- Technology report: When broken is easily fixed
- News from the WMF: News from WMF
- Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?
- Essay: How
- Humour: Village pump
- From the archives: An editorial board that includes you
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- 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.
Technical news
- 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.
Miscellaneous
- 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.
BLP question
I know you are pretty strict about BLP, so I want to ask your opinion on whether this sentence (in the lead of Thiomersal and vaccines) In spite of the consensus of the scientific community, some parents and advocacy groups continue to contend that thiomersal is linked to autism[10] and the claim is still stated as if it were fact in anti-vaccination propaganda, notably that of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. [11]
violates BLP. I am not sure myself but don't want to raise the issue if there is no problem.
Here is the source[7]. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Here for something else, but for starters I would say use the original STAT as the source and not the republished Scientific American link. Credit where credit is due and whatnot. Is your issue calling his work propaganda or just its contemporaneous nature? If all you want to do is rephrase it so that it doesn't read as a forever ongoing issue that seems reasonable, otherwise STAT seems pretty legit and Mnookin is an expert writing in his speciality.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- My concerns are calling his work "propaganda", especially singling him out in the lead of an article on a general claim, and the fact that this article implies dishonesty on his part, rather than just error. Also I am not sure if the source is an SPS or not, per WP:BLPSPS even an expert writing in his speciality is not an acceptable source for negative BLP material if it is self-published. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- What does SPS have to do with anything? Are you claiming he is the publisher of both STAT and Scientific American?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Your right, it's not an SPS, my concern is that it is quite a strong negative claim about a living person cited to a single source that looks somewhat like an opinion piece, but I wanted Bilby's opinion before I take it to BLPN. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- What does SPS have to do with anything? Are you claiming he is the publisher of both STAT and Scientific American?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- My concerns are calling his work "propaganda", especially singling him out in the lead of an article on a general claim, and the fact that this article implies dishonesty on his part, rather than just error. Also I am not sure if the source is an SPS or not, per WP:BLPSPS even an expert writing in his speciality is not an acceptable source for negative BLP material if it is self-published. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Anthony J. Hilder
Hi Bilby, I am concerned about an editor on the Anthony J. Hilder page. The editor is AlmostFrancis and even though there's been some minor vandalism, I have a strong feeling this editor is agenda driven. There were some issues with another member editing stuff out but that's apparently dropped off. Here's why. Anthony J. Hilder is regarded as a conspiracy theorist. Now nominated for deletion. First nominated on 12:57, 19 January 2019. This AlmostFrancis has first fired up 05:28, 23 December 2018. He/she has a lot more experience than someone just a couple months old. There seems to be a deliberate persona impression too. What do you think?
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am probably going to regret asking but what in tarnation is "deliberate persona impression" even supposed to mean? Also, as no doubt Bilby was about to inform you, diffless claims of vandalism are aspersions so please in the future either don't make them or add diffs.
AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Bilby, another thing that concerns me is that this member AlmostFrancis aka ???? seems creating a history of doing legit edits and then close to the time when the afd is closed, a possible sabotage will be done on the page. I do have strong suspicions and concerns. Already a couple or more of edits appear to vandalistic (Or not checking before deleting content - but he/she is more savvy than that). If you look at all of the 30 page edits to date from 05:46, 2 February 2019 to 05:26, 4 February 2019 with the exclusion of the Hilder Talk and your Talk page have, all the rest have been on Anthony J. Hilder. [8] No other subject! Sure the sock-puppet investigation added to my suspicions. But Bilby you hit on a very valid point. I'll discuss more later. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sabotage now is it? What's next, treason or blasphemy? Of course you did call me to savvy to make a mistake so maybe it cancels out. Any intention to start adding diffs to your aspersions?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)