User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 67
 | This page 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. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Balfour Declaration
I see you added TFA links to your userpage ... awesome. I recently supported Balfour Declaration on prose at FAC, so it has 3 supports now, and might or might not get promoted soon. FWIW, its anniversary is Nov 2, and the nominator keeps giving me hints that he wants it to run then if possible. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm keeping an eye on it. I needed to at least get started looking at things. I'm leaning towards Guy Fawkes Night for the 5th also... and the bird suggestion also. Gotta get some photography work done for a client first though.. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to use the suggestions at User:Dank/Sandbox/4 or not, whatever works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, this is the most recent discussion I'm aware of concerning a possible November 11 TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William de Warenne (justice)
The article William de Warenne (justice) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William de Warenne (justice) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ealdyth, sorry for my response to this article but this GA slipped my mind for way too long. (It's one of the more depressing symptoms of my increasing age.) Were you waiting on any further input from me to make any further changes? If not, I'm happy to promote it as is. (I know full well about getting stuck on sources that prove unreachable -- or only available in a language I can't read.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Alfred Shout FAC
I don't know if you got the ping, but if you get chance could you have another look at the sourcing on the FAC page? I think the nominator has addressed your concerns, but I'd like to know what you think before we go any further. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: I'm sorry for letting this one drop - but I really don't want to get into a big fight about the primary sources. I have concerns about the usage of them in general as well as in particular, but I just don't have the energy for a long drag out fight after the Jill Valentine thing and with needing to start scheduling TFAs. The concerns aren't enough to oppose but ... I think I'll avoid source reviews where so much is based on primary sources. I really think that if we have to go to the primary sources for something, we shouldn't have an article, as when we write articles based on primary sources, we're stepping into the job of historians, not encyclopedia writers. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William de Warenne (justice)
The article William de Warenne (justice) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:William de Warenne (justice) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Nov 1 TFA
Fantastic work on TFA today, thanks. I just noticed this ... I had already written a blurb and shared it with you guys, so I'm not sure what this means, which version do you like better? - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm following Mike's instructions - he said to first copy the lead into the TFA page, then replace that initial lead with the suggested lead from TFAR if there is one.... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't realize ... nevermind! That's perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, he said to do that so that whoever's writing the blurb has both versions... and I know I'm not getting the formatting perfect on all of these - I'll be able to add more steps (such as stripping out dates, etc) once I get a couple of months under my belt ... don't wanna make too much extra work for you with the blurbs. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely, do whatever you want to ease into the job. It's handy for me to be able to look at diffs between the lead, the TFAR version, and the latest version, but the main reason to have all the versions is to deal with arguments that start up at ERRORS or elsewhere ... it's easier to talk with people about what's going on if I can show them a diff. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, he said to do that so that whoever's writing the blurb has both versions... and I know I'm not getting the formatting perfect on all of these - I'll be able to add more steps (such as stripping out dates, etc) once I get a couple of months under my belt ... don't wanna make too much extra work for you with the blurbs. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't realize ... nevermind! That's perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you peek at this new one?
I took a stab at doing a basic bio on an old foundation TB, Bulle Rock. Can you check any of your magic sources to see if there is more we can add? I'd like to put it up at DYK, but it's a bit light by my usual standards (1700 char, barely OK). Any expansion welcomed! Montanabw(talk) 22:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Small ghettos in Jacob Gens
Hello, found info on the red-linked small ghettos in Jacob Gens article. All of them are described in some detail in volume II of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. The monumental book is available for free as a PDF download but does not show up in Google search due to silly "survey" requirement. Renata (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Stigand
This is obviously all a bit tongue in cheek, but:
(a) many articles have "in popular culture" sections or similar, which tell us nothing directly about the subject of the article but are of interest to some readers
(b) this edit did not require a reference because the book itself is the reference :)
Ehrenkater (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- for a featured article, we would want a secondary source discussing why the mention of Stigand in another work reflects something about Stigand himself. WP:OTHERSTUFF and all that, otherwise our article turn into a pile of brief mentions and don’t actually discuss the subject of the article...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) That's not entirely true—it can be legitimate to include an IPC if the mention in another work has had a significant impact on public perception of the article subject, even if it tells us nothing about the subject itself. (Appropriately for this time of year, Guy Fawkes is probably the canonical example of this.) This is certainly not the case for Alice in Wonderland, where Stigand serves solely as the set-up for a gag on misunderstanding what the "it" in "Stigand found it advisable" means. ‑ Iridescent 19:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Berhtwald
Horace Mann says "John sent the pallium to Brithwald, whom "he confirmed as Archbishop of Canterbury"." [1]. Maybe he got two. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- So.. you're relying on the 100 year old Catholic Encyclopedia for that? Generally, if a much newer source contradicts something like the Catholic Encyclopedia, historians consider the newer source correct. A LOT has changed in history since the CE was published. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Stephens is pretty clear that Berhtwald went to Rome and received two letters of support from Sergius. He does not mention a pallium. Twenty-four years later Mann says Berhtwald received it from John VI. John's letter of 704 makes a point of confirming Bertwald in his See, a point which Lingard noted earlier. The DNB is not more current than Mann if they're simply reprinting Stephens. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- The ODNB entry for Berhtwald is not a reprint of Stephens' article. It's been quite heavily revised by Henrietta Leyser, as is evident by the first sentence in the ODNB article which is "Berhtwald [Brihtwald] (c.650–731), archbishop of Canterbury, was born about the middle of the seventh century, but neither the place nor the exact date of his birth is known." Stephens' article begins "Brihwold (650?-731, the eighth archbishop of Canterbury, whose name is variously spelt by different writers, was of noble, if not royal lineage (Will Malm. Gest. Reg. i. 29), and was born about the middle of the seventh century, but neither the place nor the exact date of his birth is known." The ODNB article retains some bits from Stephens, but also excises quite a bit also. As I pointed out in my edit summary - Leyser's revision is quite clear that it was Pope Sergius that gave Berhtwald a pallium and does NOT mention John giving him a pallium. (Leyser also points out that the Privilege of Wihtred that Stephens accepts as authentic is "the so-called ‘privilege of Wihtred’, a ninth-century forgery that aimed to claim exemption for Kentish monasteries from all lay control." So, yes, the ODNB is a much revised and improved with modern scholarship entry over the Stephens and Catholic Encyclopedia century-old entries. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Stephens is pretty clear that Berhtwald went to Rome and received two letters of support from Sergius. He does not mention a pallium. Twenty-four years later Mann says Berhtwald received it from John VI. John's letter of 704 makes a point of confirming Bertwald in his See, a point which Lingard noted earlier. The DNB is not more current than Mann if they're simply reprinting Stephens. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
Administrator changes
Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite
Technical news
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
- A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
- Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.
Obituaries
- The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
- First Place -
Adityavagarwal (submissions) - Second Place -
Vanamonde (submissions) - Third Place -
Cas Liber (submissions)
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
- Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
- Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
- Featured List –
Bloom6132 (submissions) and 
1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2 - Featured Pictures –
SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year. - Featured Topic –
MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3. - Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
- Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
- In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
- Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.
Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.
We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. 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 · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Richard III
Hi,
I don't suppose you could have a quick look at Richard III of England - it's just passed a GA review, but without any obvious improvements being enacted on, and a couple of large-scale reverts over the past month. That immediately raises red flags for me.
I can't remember if the tail-end of the Middle Ages is in your area of expertise, but I think you'd be a good starting point to see what we can do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's a bit past my normal editing area (at best I extend to 1300), but there are some issues with the article. The referencing style is all over the place, I'd have concerns with using the various publications of the pro-Richard III societies, this is unlikely to be a useful source except for a novelists opinion (and why would we use a novelists opinion when so much academic history has been written on him), the "culture" section has no serious selection criteria, the section on finding his remains is entirely too long, the reputation section is also insanely long, there are statements such as "Still feeling a strong bond with his northern estates"... which strike me as very much POV and should be attributed to the actual author/source. In short, on a quick glance, I'd have issues with the review and would consider a GAR at least. The review was very superficial for such a polarizing figure in history. I'm not seeing that any of the suggestions were even acted on! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- As one of the most widely known and talked about monarchs ever, I would expect the GA review to be a long slog needing close examination of source material. The best thing to do is do pop onto WT:GAN and suggest the review is pulled. I can do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I am the reviewer for the Richard III GA review, I can understand the basic points made here and will be putting the review on hold soon, I would appreciate it if you could give your thoughts on the references in more detail on the review page as your input would be very useful. thanks. Dysklyver 12:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Gratz
Just dropping by to congratulate you at the halfway point ... half of your month of scheduling has come and gone with no fireworks. Good work! - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks and I gotta do more FACs...!
Hi E, thanks for putting up Bazy Tankersley for TfA, it was sweet and relatively low drama. I only have two remaining FACs that have not been TfA: Homer Davenport and Secretariat (horse). I'm thinking Secretariat for Derby day next May, what do you think? Homer could go any time there is a lull, his political cartooning seems particularly interesting in light of the modern age, but he also could be a good TfA for the anniversary of the Titanic sinking -- as he caught his fatal case of pneumonia on the NYC docks waiting for the survivors to come in (I think that was in April?). Anyway, if you feel inclined, or Dank needs ideas... Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: Appaloosa/Opelousa
Ealdgyth, I am an archaeologist and historian in Louisiana who has done much research and is very familiar with the Opelousa Indians and the historic trading post and village of Opelousas. In fact, I just edited the Opelousas, Louisiana, Wikipedia article because someone had the name of the tribe and post as Appalousa, which it has never been called on any map or in any historical document. My edit for the Appaloosa Horse Wikipedia article was only to suggest that the person who wrote the 1948 article saying that the "Opelousa horse" was used to bring goods to New Orleans did not take into account that some people in Louisiana confuse the words "Appaloosa" and "Opelousa" for the horse. Historically, Opelousas was an important town in Louisiana and native Louisianians very likely heard "Appaloosa" and thought it was "Opelousas". While I am sure that the 1948 article had a source for the "Opelousa horse" statement, in all my years of pouring over historical documents and accounts in Louisiana, I cannot remember once encountering horses called "Opelousa". Other than my 35+ years of research into the history of Louisiana, including the Opelousas area, I cannot provide any references to a negative. Thus I am asking you to allow the edit to suggest that the writer of the historic statement might have confused the name of the Appaloosa with the Opelousa Indians and town of Opelousas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGreen901 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Appaloosa is a WP:Featured Article, that means that information in the article must be sourced to reliable sources and nothing in the article should be misattributed. When you inserted that statement into the article, you were saying that it was sourced to Meredith, Mamie J. (May 1952). "'Opelousas,' Another Spelling of 'Appalucy'". American Speech. 27 (2): 150. JSTOR 454356. that article. However, that article doesn't say anything about "However, this spelling was probably made by erroneously associating the Louisiana Indian tribe, Opelousas, with the horse breed name of similar sounding." However, the article does not support the statement you inserted. This is a frequent problem on wikipedia - people inserting information into a sentence/section that is already sourced, even though that source does not support the recently inserted information. As to allowing the edit to stand because of your own research, we can't do that - see the relevant wikipedia policy at WP:OR. We don't publish content that isn't already in secondary sources. A further bit of help - generally article content discussions are best held on the talk page of the article - not on an editor's talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
SFN template question
Hi Ealdgyth, I'm having trouble figuring out why certain sfn templates for the references in Three Sisters (Oregon), but not others. Do you happen to understand why only certain books seem to match up when you click on their corresponding sfn footnotes? ceranthor 04:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Ceranthor: There are two main issues: missing anchors and mismatched anchors. If you're using templates from the "cite" family for full refs, you need to add ref=harv to the template to create an anchor (you could also use a custom anchor). Then you have to make sure the sfn template is referring to the correct anchor, and in this article it looks like the problem is usually omitting the second author from the sfn ref. (If you install this script, it will show you what anchor is used by both the sfn and cite templates in cases where they don't match, which helps figure out the problem). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Automated edits
Regarding the mystery of where your automated edits are coming from, this tool will break them down for you. (It takes a while, but just leave it running in its own tab or window.) The bulk of them come from rollback (which counts as automated by Wikipedia's measure), while most of the rest are the dash- and whitespace-fixing scripts. (You do actually have some Twinkle edits as well; at I wild guess I'll say the automated adding of block templates.) ‑ Iridescent 16:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since I've never actually blocked someone.... not sure how they'd happen with Twinkle. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ya, bunch of dashing scripts, page moves and disambiguations there. For comparison. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
ACE2017
Hi Victoria. Someone pointed me to your voter guide where you said "Doesn't claim any GAs or FAs on their user page - but has many including FLs." so I did a bit of digging and came up with 81 FLs, 17 FAs and around 175 GAs. Not that it means anything substantial, I just wondered myself once you'd said what you'd said! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- In the unlikely event you're not already aware, you can get a reasonably accurate snapshot of an editor's activity at FAC at WP:WBFAN. (Personally, I think WP:WBFAN and WP:WBE should both be not only deleted, but oversighted and salted, as I think they encourage a high-score-table mentality which is wholly negative, but they're nonetheless useful in situations like this where you actually want a high score table.) WBFAN isn't absolutely accurate—it counts nominations rather than articles written, so back in the old days when all FACs had to be nominated by someone other than the author, there's an element of unintentional kill stealing; plus, it hugely underestimates people like Eric and Truthkeeper who do a lot of co-writing but don't always appear on the actual nomination. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Right, thanks, I just went back over the things I knew I'd done, e.g. I knew I'd got every single The Boat Race article up to GA (162 and counting) and some of those (3 or 4) to FA. Hey ho, it's no big deal, just read what Ealdgyth had written and wondered. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I on the road and will be for a week, but will update that when I get back...I knew you had featured and good content...just didn’t have the time to hunt it down.Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm on the road too, although not having as much fun as you might be... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I on the road and will be for a week, but will update that when I get back...I knew you had featured and good content...just didn’t have the time to hunt it down.Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Right, thanks, I just went back over the things I knew I'd done, e.g. I knew I'd got every single The Boat Race article up to GA (162 and counting) and some of those (3 or 4) to FA. Hey ho, it's no big deal, just read what Ealdgyth had written and wondered. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Ealdgyth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
...so they created an account. ----->SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't get the thing revision deleted right off the bat because I was still waking up... it should probably go again. @Acroterion: got the first instance and rev-del'd it, so I figure it's a good plan. Block the user? I so do not get into blocking policy... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks for that; "To block or not to block" is totally up to you. To relieve you of any crisis of conscience ;) I've left them a personalised level-4. The important thing I think is that the trash is removed; the litter bug can be picked up later. ----->SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. I've got errands to run all morning... I hate to block and run so we'll see if it is still continuing later when I (finally) get home. I can't believe I'm about to go shopping (at a MALL, no less) on a weekend in December... I must have lost my brain somewhere. (But first I get to go to the local library monthly book sale, so that's good, right?) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes! -having to go to the mall afterwards is a kind of penance, probably, for having the luck of a book sale to go beforehand!!! Enjoy. And forget about ethno-centric sectarians for a few hours eh ;) ----->SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- And on a lighter note, User:Zzuuzz has relieved us of our Moral Dilemma ;) ----->SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh that's just JarlaxleArtemis having one of his fits. No moral dilemma to be had. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Jeremy/Jarlaxle follows a predictable script: this is a classic version. Dealing with a flood of his insults is kind of a rite of passage. As Zzuzz says, no moral dilemma at all. Block, revdel and wait for more. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh that's just JarlaxleArtemis having one of his fits. No moral dilemma to be had. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. I've got errands to run all morning... I hate to block and run so we'll see if it is still continuing later when I (finally) get home. I can't believe I'm about to go shopping (at a MALL, no less) on a weekend in December... I must have lost my brain somewhere. (But first I get to go to the local library monthly book sale, so that's good, right?) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks for that; "To block or not to block" is totally up to you. To relieve you of any crisis of conscience ;) I've left them a personalised level-4. The important thing I think is that the trash is removed; the litter bug can be picked up later. ----->SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't get the thing revision deleted right off the bat because I was still waking up... it should probably go again. @Acroterion: got the first instance and rev-del'd it, so I figure it's a good plan. Block the user? I so do not get into blocking policy... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)