Wikipedia

User talk:Bilby/Archive 14

< User talk:Bilby
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Bilby in topic Courtesy notice: FTN
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 19

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! See: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Young_Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims. Alweth (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 2 • February 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

clementine ford

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You've made a lot of good edits to this page. These sources will help you out further:- https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/feminist-clementine-ford-sparks-walkout-by-refusing-to-answer-schoolboys-questions/news-story/281fd397dbef086806910390e5dae120 and also https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4838780/Dad-s-outrage-school-s-guest-speaker-Clementine-Ford.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4163:AD00:41ED:85B3:3CCC:909C (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

  Arbitration

  • 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-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.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.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Recove `Dev Dhawal´ page

Mr. Dev dhawal is working for farmers rights and respect in Nepal . So help him to be respectable farmers societies in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.94.253.97 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy First Edit Day!
 

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


This Month in Education: March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 3 • March 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bring your idea for Wikimedia in Education to life! Launch of the Wikimedia Education Greenhouse

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Apply for Education Greenhouse


 

Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupe wikimedia.org

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 4 • April 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

  Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Kellie Loder Page

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I recently came across the Kellie Loder page and saw significant issues with it. Among other things, I shortened the ridiculously long introduction and moved any missing information to the main body, and also made the language more encyclopedic and succinct. After going to eat lunch, I noticed everything that I had edited was reverted by User:Walter Görlitz, who said that the reason why he was reverting my edit was because I did not provide an adequate summary of them. However, I did leave enough information to justify my edits, and after perusing the edit log of the page, noticed that almost any time someone else has attempted to make constructive edits to the page as I did, Walter Gorlitz reverted them successively. After visiting his talk page, I noticed also that he as been warned for edit warring on another page, and I fear that he is using the risk of edit warring to prevent editors from making constructive edits. If he reverts me again, I have no power to revert it back if his reasoning for locking down the page is bad because I will have passed the 24 hour 3 edit rule. I would like you to step in or at least mediate. There are many problems with the Kellie Loder page and I would love to be able to make it better without being stonewalled.

Let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to provide you with anything!

Thanks, DrumSalad (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why @DrumSalad: is involved, but she has been accused of WP:UPE and I suspect this is the case here.
For the record, DrumSalad is not anywhere near WP:3RR and no effort at WP:BRD has been made.
The issue is simple: the subject herself was involved in the article (which is why I suspect UPE). She started her career in the "Christian music industry" and, after a change in faith (which is not uncommon or unusual) wants to expunge that portion of her past. That's all discussed on the article's talk page and her own talk page. I'm fine with updating the article to reflect her current direction but rewriting the history, or even removing it, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I've thought about this a good deal, @Walter Görlitz: and wanted to reach out and apologize if I was a hostile earlier. I'm a bit up-tight today. I'll explain my intentions, and I want to get your suggestion for the right way forward. I do not want to bury the Christian music association as it was obviously a major focus of her career, however I do think that the folk/pop music association should go first so that her current musical focus is highlighted. The second thing that I want to do is slim down the intro section, because it is currently packed with detailed information that is already in the body. I think that the intro paragraph should succinctly highlight her career, but not go into detail about her inspiration for her first song at 16, for example, which can be found in the actual body of the article. By the way, is the subject directly involved in this page? You suggested that she is actively involved in manipulating the page to expunge the Christian music record. Could you link me her username so that I can see what she attempted to do? Again, thank you for your help. I want to work with you on this, as I'm certain that you also have concerns about the page that are in line with mine. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how I should proceed with this, because I will try to restructure the intro section again, but not blank it out completely. DrumSalad (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Update @Walter Görlitz:: I made a less intrusive edit to the intro section. Let me know what you think! DrumSalad (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you mind if we move this discussion off Bilby's talk page and onto the subject's article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not at all! DrumSalad (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Changed copyright condition on State Library South Australia photos

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Bilby,

There are two photos that have been placed on commons where at the time they were placed there, the owner of the photograph, SLSA stated they were public domain. However when I look at the source pages I now see they are in copyright. I raised this with SLSA reference desk and they suggested simply asking for permission. I'm not sure it might be granted the same as public domain which is very compatible with Commons. There is a wider issue of the Grimmett collection and SLSA owned photos not currently in commons but which provide some of the very few photos available for some significant deceased individuals.

Example 1 -- Colin Thiele and Max Fatchen

Example 2 -- Don Dunstan - Government prior to 1969 claimed, that may be incorrect, is part of formerly public domain Grimmet collection

Can you provide me with some guidance as what best to do? Alex Sims (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Adrian David Cheok Speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Bilby,

I was surprised to see you deleted the Adrian David Cheok entry claiming copyright infringement. Obviously the timeliness of the deletion re: the Australian elections will be noted by anyone with knowledge of the subject and Australian elections. I may be wrong but I am not entirely certain the whole entry was plagiarised. Though indeed further citations and references were needed, over the recent months several citations and legitimate, valid references were included. This has been a controversial entry indeed, apparently created by the subject of the entry and then subsequently edited in a non-neutral way by arguably his students and himself (when anonymous, the edits did indicate Adelaide IPs). Is it possible that 'copyright infringement' was a handy excuse for a speedy deletion? I appreciate you are an Admin and that it looks like once the entry has been deleted there is not much point in discussing reasons, but thought that in the spirit of collegiality and public documentation I would share my concerns here. I for one never thought the subject was notable enough, but once there was an entry an attempt could have been made to keep the entry as Wikipedia abiding as possible. Thanks very much indeed in advance.

Predicatecalculus (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I confirm that almost the entire article as originally created by User:Dj68000 on 12 December 2011 is copyvio from the page Bilby found that existed (according to archive timestamp) from 11 November 2010 or earlier. That content persisted through to the deletion—it was still copyvio with no non-infringing version to rescue and retain. Copyright is a non-negotiable policy here on wikipedia, no matter what the topic or one's political leanings, and your failure to WP:AGF or cast aspersions/propose sinister ulterior motives is not appropriate. There was a "Controversies" section that was much newer, and whose editorial origins I did not trace. If you or someone else wishes to write an article about this person, I or another admin could revive it. DMacks (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. Just to explain my reasoning, the copyright issues were foundational - almost the entire page was taken from a copyrighted site when it was first created in 2011, with only minor changes in wording, except for an extended quote by Cheok that was copied from one of his publications. Since then that has remained the base, and while other text was added, a significant portion of the article used the original text. For example, the original source read:
"He has previously worked in real-time systems, soft computing, and embedded computing in Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs (Osaka, Japan). He has been working on research covering mixed reality, human-computer interfaces, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing, fuzzy systems, embedded systems, power electronics."
The text of the first article revision contained:
"He worked in real-time systems, soft computing, and embedded computing in Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs. He has been working on research covering mixed reality, human-computer interfaces, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing, fuzzy systems, embedded systems, power electronics. "
And the text as it stood at the time of deletion was:
"Cheok worked in real-time systems, soft computing, and embedded computing in Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs[citation needed]. He has been working on research covering mixed reality,[10] human-computer interfaces, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing, fuzzy systems, embedded systems, power electronics."
Other text in the article contained the same similarities. To confirm that this wasn't a case of the other site copying Wikipedia, I used the Wayback Machine to check a version that predated the creation of the Wikipedia article.
I had hoped that there would be a prior revision to revert back to in order to remove the copyrighted text from the history but still keep something to rebuild from - however, as this came from the first edit I had to delete the article as a whole. I also have absolutely no problem with someone creating the page again, given the potential notability problems you raise and assuming that the text meets Wikipedia's licensing requirements. - Bilby (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the responses! It is much clearer now. I am not interested at all in writing an article about this person- as I said, the notability in my view is questionable. Predicatecalculus (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 5 • May 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes

  Ivanvector

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wojciech Waleczek

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Could you please help me to move an userspace draft about an award-winning composer into article space? The draft is about Wojciech Waleczek—a succesful pianist from Poland whose numerous achievements deserve to be celebrated with his own Wikipedia page. He took 3rd prize at the Premio Mario Zanfi competition and was the absolute winner of the 4th Franz Liszt National Piano Competition—to name just a few of his accomplishments. Mr Waleczek already has his articles on German and Polish Wikipedia. Hope to hear back from you. Regards, AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarity please

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, Bilby - to begin, thank you for your good work at Attkisson and for starting the discussion at BLP/N. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what just happened on the Attkisson TP so please correct me if I'm wrong, but with consideration to the blatant noncompliance with BLP/NPOV and the fact that the article is subject to DS under Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Editing of Biographies of Living Persons and possibly even Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Pseudoscience, why was no immediate action taken to correct the noncompliance? I have never seen such resistance and mud-slinging against a BLP escalate without some kind of preventative action by an administrator. Cullen328 made an appearance, but how is it possible that WP:BLPCOI was overlooked? It was brought to everyone's attention. The WMF has even emphasized the importance of human dignity and respect, and how we are expected to behave when a BLP shows up to comment on the TP. I can't help but relate to what happened to me for using a bit of levity and jokingly misspelling a person's name in a TP discussion, and then after my t-ban appeal was granted, the ensuing harassment and gaslighting I'm forced to endure by 2 disgruntled admins who apparently believe WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED, WP:HARASSMENT and WP:PA don't apply to them. I'm bringing it up because I just witnesed battleground behavior at Attkisson, editors being extremely rude and unhelpful, stonewalling, and noncompliant with WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED, but it was allowed to persist. The result is terrible PR about WP over this very incident on Twitter and the internet. It's a bad reflection on all of us. Perhaps this is one of the reasons T&S is becoming more involved in the en.WP - not something any of us would like to see happen, much less encourage - but we're certainly not going to fix the problems with inaction. Please help me understand what just happened, because as an editor who was t-banned for taking polite and civil argument too far as others were doing but with incivility, and who is currently being harassed, it really makes me wonder what's going on when I step back and take a look at the big picture. I look forward to your response. Atsme Talk 📧 21:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Cullen328 re-ping Atsme Talk 📧 04:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally if we try to push something through - especially with AE rules - we'll get sufficiently pushed back that it will make things harder. I try not to use those unless I absolutely have to - it is much better to explain and work with editors than to drop enforcement on them, so that's my first choice. In this case I've been through BLP/N on this topic before, so I knew what the outcome would be, and that means that we'll have consensus instead of unwilling recipients of enforcement, and this would create a more enduring solution. (That said, I'm also involved, so I couldn't do much directly anyway).
I tend to give a lot of leeway on issues around vaccination. From my perspective, both "sides" are incredibly well intentioned. Those opposed to vaccination genuinely fear for their children as they are terrified that they will risk autism or other side effects for something that their children may never need, while those who oppose them (correctly, in my view) see anti-vaxx arguments as risking the health (and potentially lives) of children who cannot be vaccinated or whose parents chose not to vaccinate. Given that, I expect battleground behaviour - I don't have to like it, but I understand that the topic is emotional and important to those arguing. Equally, I don't like topic bans, because what I don't like to see is dissenting voices silenced unless those voices really can't engage with the process, as we need dissenting voices to maintain balance in some of these BLPs. (And we have a problem that there are now few dissenting voices in some of these topics, making the risk of unbalanced articles much higher). That said, there is a limit, and we were skirting it. - Bilby (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OMG - can we clone you?? If more admins thought like you, editing would be far more pleasant in controversial topic areas. My apologies for the baggage I incorporated into my question, but the train left me at the WP:POVRAILROAD station, and I've been forced to walk the distance with baggage in tow. I just tossed one those bags in the dumpster. Crossing paths with you provided a nice boost in restoring my faith in the system. Lead on, Bilby. Thank you and happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 13:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bilby and Atsme. As can be seen by a good look at my editing history, I don't care one iota about the vaccine issue. I'm actually very neutral on the subject because it's one I haven't investigated and, like the abortion issue, it's one I've chosen to stay far from as it's just too heated and seems to be lacking all rational, level-headed debate (except in rare cases). From a mile away one can see that it is a loosing battle to engage with those holding strong, myopic, binary thought processes on these issues. The truth, anyway, is rarely found at one of the extremes, and grows even more distant with accompanying hand-wavy arguments and insults like "science hater". In my case, though I have never edited nor likely even mentioned any pseudoscience on WP, it has been suggested that I have a major problem in this area, and that I'm a 'pseudoscience pusher". I'm seeing leeway given to this behaviour because, well, it's a controversial topic. But in my view, the problem we have when trying to create balanced articles is caused by editors who are fanatical about any given issue. I'm not sure that it's a good idea to allow activists on either side of heated topics to edit those areas.
One of my focuses here has been on BLP's, especially those that have become biased either by fans or foes running amok. To be honest, it's quite rare to find a balanced BLP. People who've edited Sharyl's page have largely been people who seem to hate her - from the choice of the Lede image (prior to my change), to scraping up and adding every random criticism that has ever been printed, whilst degrading mention of her many accolades - it became a hit piece. When I looked through some of the sources already in use, I noticed there was an obvious exclusion of any argument from Attkisson explaining her vaccine reporting, even though the topic was being extensively covered in her bio. We used the Daily Beast for several bits of content, yet their mention of her stated justification for the reporting she's done, namely a verified statement from a well-respected scientist, was disallowed. In the Snopes article that everyone fought tooth and nail to include, the statement by Zimmerman (who is still with the CDC and remains in good standing, and who has not retracted his claim) was included, but suggesting it be added to our BLP resulted in personal attacks on me, and claims that I am "pushing pseudoscience theories" (theories??). This is one of the worst things an editor on WP can be accused of: pushing pseudoscience. And I have done nothing to deserve these claims. What is being excluded by activist editors is important, encyclopedic fodder. We are favoring Snopes as a source over a scientist with the CDC. This is why people make fun of WP. This is why Larry Sanger claims we never learned how to deal with 'bad actors'. Because we allow the loudest and angriest to control content. Mainly because we are volunteers and there is nothing fun about dealing with those types, or the never-ending noticeboards.
It should also be easy to observe that my suggestions to add bits from RS already in use, additions that give insight into Attkisson's side of the story, namely, why she reports the wild and crazy stuff she does, do not make me an advocate. If I worked on Hitler's article and wanted to add a quotation from him to give readers greater understanding of his rationale, does that mean I support his ideas? Shouldn't the public expect more from WP editors, such as the ability to think outside of the anti/pro dichotomy?
Anyway, you've got a great conversation going here. Thanks for letting me poke my head in. Enjoy, petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation re-added

Bilby, your fix here has been undone. Since the page is locked to all but administrators, I wonder if you or El C can see to removing this violation. petrarchan47คุก 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following the rational. Perhaps take to BLPN, instead? El_C 18:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
El C you don't agree with Bilby's removal of the blog in the diff above? The rationale is stated in the edit summary, it's a violation of policy. petrarchan47คุก 18:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPSPS - "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." petrarchan47คุก 18:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It is now at BLPN, danke. petrarchan47คุก 08:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
My apologies - I have a flu, so I have been sitting around feeling sorry for myself rather than editing, and I should have got back to you sooner. When this has been through BLP/N before, the general consensus has been that we can use self-published sources to express the opinion of teh author, but not to express facts about the subject. Thus it is normally ok for us to say "Gorski was critical of ..." because that is expressing Gorski's opinion, but not "According to Gorski, only one expert was consulted" as that is a factual statement that comes from an SPS, so can't be used. Thus I removed Gorski's statements about Attkisson, but didn't remove Gorski's person opinions about her. I do have a problem with this approach as there will always be someone highly critical we can quote, especially with a controversial topic, but that is a difficult argument. I guess we'll see what happens at BLP/N this time. There are certainly those who have argued that we can't use an SPS on a BLP at all, but I'm not sure where consensus will lie as we've had a bit of editor turnover in that area of BLP. - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's a bummer. I'm sorry to hear this. Well, you sure are missed when you're under the weather. Please get well soon and when you feel up to it, the BLPN will be waiting. Cheers, petrarchan47คุก 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • 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. Community feedback is invited.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 6 • June 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

Editing News #1—July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

 

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon   to start editing.

Edit Cards

 

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 7 • July 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jenny McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:TPOC you are not allowed to retain comments making accusations of bias while collapsing shorter response to those comments. Either collapse both sides of the argument or leave both sides alone.

I would also remind you of this discretionary sanctions warning you received last year:[1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had mentioned that you had raised this at WP:FTN, but I've responded there. - Bilby (talk)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 8 • August 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 01:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
  Floquenbeam • Lectonar
  DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

  CheckUser changes

  Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

  Oversight changes

  Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Example/Archive 12

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on User talk:Example/Archive 12 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Similar to Archive 13, this was almost certainly the result of an errant archive script syntax. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir#Archiving_comments

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing AFPSLAI Scholarship in list of Notable Scholarships

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good day Sir! I noticed that you removed what I have added in the list of notable scholarships. Are those notable scholarships are from America only? The reason why I added the Armed Forces & Police Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AFPSLAI) Scholarship is that it is well-known here in the Philippines. It is one of the scholarship programs which produces a lot of Filipino graduates. These are the verifiable web links: 1. https://www.afp.mil.ph/index.php/8-afp-news/563-afpslai-scholarship-and-educational-assistance-program 2. https://philnewsph.com/2018/05/09/afpslai-scholarship-and-educational-assistance-program-application-requirements-qualifications-and-benefits/ 3. https://www.scribd.com/document/399082683/scholarship-application-form-pdf 4. https://fitzvillafuerte.com/information-about-afpslai.html 5. http://adventuresofateacherwannabe.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-thank-you-letter-for-afpslai.html?m=1 Jsnueva1022 (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 9 • September 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 19:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

 
What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.

Toolbar

 
The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.
  • In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
    • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
    • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
    • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
  • Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

  • Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
  • Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
  • Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 10 • October 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 08:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hartley TS16/18/21, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Tucker (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) 07:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

FTN

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I mentioned you at the fringe theories noticeboard. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How Come You Don't Disclose That You Are an Admin?

Hi. How come you don't disclose that you are an administrator on Wikipedia, on your user page? That is kind of deceptive to not disclose that, isn't it? Also, many times editors are looking for admins to assist in various circumstances, which I believe is part of an administrator's function. In your case, they would be unable to discern that you were actually an administrator, to ask for help... Please correct me if I am wrong that you are not an admin and have not been an admin for years...

My account is included in Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. - Bilby (talk)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Bilby,

Would it be possible to further explain your revert of my revert of a recent change to WP:BLP. Your edit summary is "not without consensus"; are you suggesting that there is consensus for BullRangifer's change to the policy? If so, could you share a link to the discussion? I looked at the policy Talk page, but couldn't find anything. - Ryk72 talk 00:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I misread the last edit, and though it was going the wrong way. I self reverted as soon as I realised I stuffed up. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for the quick reply. - Ryk72 talk 00:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
That was an easy mistake to make. Been there, done that. I made the change after a discussion where I noted that when I had added the requirement to mention any denials a long time ago, I had failed to add certain qualifying words. So I just went and added them, but without any discussion on the BLP talk page.
I expected someone would maybe fine-tune and tweak it to make it better, but I didn't expect a complete deletion. What would be better wording? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Over at Gary Null you appear to be in an edit war. I suggest you stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to edit war, but the quote isn't in any of the sources provided, and under BLP we should remove it. I wanted to add an FV tag rather than remove, but I'm uncomfortable with attributing a quote to a BLP subject without a viable source. Otherwise, we do need to consiolidate the refs, as the same group of three refs are posted twice, making the ref list unweildy, but that isn't a BLP concern. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#About the request to extend full protection by one month

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#About the request to extend full protection by one month. You are encouraged to share your thoughts at the above talkpage discussion, within the next 24 hours, before administrator El C renders his decision on whether to extend the full page protection for Sharyl Attkisson and for how long. Doug Mehus T·C 18:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please stop re-adding a “factual accuracy is disputed” tag. The factual accuracy is not in dispute and has in fact been accepted by consensus. The dispute is over BLP. Please remove this inaccurate tag immediately and cease edit warring over it - keep note there is a 1RR rule in effect. Toa Nidhiki05 19:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently an RFC looking at the claim as to whether it is correct to add that she has denied a key accusation made in that section. Currently her denial has been removed. Considering the significance of that denial, it seems fair to let readers know that there is a dispiute about that content until it is resolved. - Bilby (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It is not a factual accuracy issue. Either fix the tag or, ideally, remove it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
We are debating whether or not a key fact should be included. That seems to speak to factual accuracy. - Bilby (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 11 • November 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 03:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
  Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, my added information regarding Levon Khachigian and Dz13 have been deleted by Megan Parry. All of my information is fully documented by references and Megan Parrys claims are false. I ask you to please look at the evidence and re-edit and include my added information. Thanks. Moroks (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

When protecting the page I don;t have any opinion about which version is correct - by definition, whatever state it was protected in is the wrong version. As it is now protected, hopefully the issues will be worked out on the talk page. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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) 21:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: FTN

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Bilby. I noticed someone started a discussion about you without notifying you. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bilby_removing_Quackwatch --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll respond there. - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilby/Archive_14&oldid=1211795077"