Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 60

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

  • 1Lib1Ref 2022
  • Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:US Census population on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Economy of Pakistan on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

How was it not?! It’s the truth I don’t think you understand this website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.37.185 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The "steroid user" part was completely true about Jose Canseco, and he did plead no contest to a domestic violence related charge. [10] But the phrasing could imply that he currently uses steroids (plus that information is already at the end of the lede; it mentions he uses performance enhancing drugs), and a loaded term like "wife beater" isn't an appropriate description of what he did. The better thing would be to add something at the end that says he pled "no contest" to a domestic violence charge, though I don't think this is important enough information to include in the lede unless many different sources have remarked upon it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you think of my comments as patronizing?

I note this comment, that would be true if I didn’t mean that wholeheartedly. On two occasions at RFA I have swayed my support/oppose based on a rationale you proffered. To be honest, except when I deem the candidate beyond worthy, I intentionally(maybe subconsciously?) wait for your rationale prior making a decision, thus when I say I respect you, I really do, 0 flattery, just sheer honesty.   Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: For whatever reason I didn't see this until now. The phrasing "I knew I could count on your intellectual prowess to do the right thing" was a little over the top for me haha. I was somewhat shocked when I read it. I'm somewhat surprised to hear you say what you said given I haven't commented on that many RfAs and don't really hear from many other editors that they are aware of me and what I am doing. These 52 talk page archives are almost all RfC notifications and newsletters that I need to cull into some sort of separate stream. I am glad to hear that what you said was meant sincerely and I hope to do better in the future. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:US Census population on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022


I’m sorry if I was needlessly harsh at AN/I

You were probably right, there was nothing out of order. Dronebogus (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2022

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
  • Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  • A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
  • Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJLTalk 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  •   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  •   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  •   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  •   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  •   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  •   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sayyid dynasty on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI and royalty

The problem is not that gender identity is different from other kinds of identity, it’s that being a monarch is not a personal identity. (Do you also need me to explain why the Ukraine analogy was offensive? I hope you are not going to change MOS based on that, too.) —JBL (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC) (Also, obviously, gender was already singled out in MOS -- you can tell because, unlike other kinds of identity, it had its own subsection -- so maybe in the future you should think more before you hit "publish changes". --JBL (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC))

@JayBeeEll: the mos on identity says "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." The whole crux of the dispute is someone wants to be referred to with a term (prince) that isn't used by reliable sources. Since we agree that having a gender identity is a wholly distinct issue from wanting to be referred to by a certain term (the point of MOS:IDENTITY), then we might as well upgrade the gender identity subsection so that it doesn't tell people that gender identity is the same issue as wanting to be referred to with a specific term (in that it encompasses broader issues). Alternatively, relabel the heading so it more accurately reflects what the differences are. Because right now, placing it in a subsection under identity implies it's comparable to other cases where people want to use certain terms when that isn't the case. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make a substantive case for the change in an appropriate venue, be my guest. --JBL (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. T. Edson on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Caracal on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:One-way interview on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

  • New library collections
  • Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This Month in Education: March 2022

What to do about older articles?

The closure on the discussion you started was performed, saying that there's rough consensus against draft-ifying older articles. Must policy be changed right away by saying "more than 180 days" on the safer side instead of "more than 90 days", must there be more discussion, or what else? --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho: I didn't close it so I wouldn't know. But currently the status quo is that "old articles shouldn't be draftified" and in the absence of any affirmative consensus that 180 days is a good length of time, we're continuing with the status quo. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I found out Joe Roe recently added that rule in WP:Drafts. George Ho (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm WP:INVOLVED so I'll defer to Joe on this one. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

WPTC Arbcom

Hi Chess, I'm a little confused as to what you meant here: [26]. Am I being investigated for something, or were you saying that I have been talked about in the discord server that I am not a part of? If you could clear that up I'd appreciate it! Thanks, United States Man (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man: go join the Discord and search "USM" if you want it's not pretty. But yes, you were talked about to say the least and I would say they harassed you even if you don't know it right now. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Not surprised and really not hurt by it. Thanks for posting that because it’s the first I’ve heard of it, and I don’t really care to join the discord. I edit because I like to, and I don’t have time to discuss Wikipedia somewhere else. United States Man (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@United States Man: To clarify, some editors coordinated reverts of your edits so individually they wouldn't hit 3rr. It's not just trash-talking. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Wow. I noticed you named some names. I realize I get into some spirited editing myself, but I definitely didn't know I was being coordinated against in that manner. United States Man (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm freaking out right now. MarioJump83! 03:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@MarioJump83: This truly will be a shitshow and it's sad to see how it's gotten to this point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tropical Storms arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 13, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 08:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

20:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-15

19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)