User talk:J Milburn/archive48
 | 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. |
Good luck
The Signpost: 27 December 2019
- From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again
- News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages
- In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?
- Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki
- Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December
- Technology report: User scripts and more
- Gallery: Holiday wishes
- Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary
- From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report
Can I interest you in an Archbishop?
Seasonal greetings, Josh. I'm not sure how far your philosophical interests extend into the preoccupations of the Church of England, but if you are in the least disposed I have the 96th Archbishop of Canterbury up for peer review. Not, as it happens, a notable theologian or philosopher, unlike his successor-but-one, but a practical and (I think) good and wise man, too little remembered and worthy of a top-class article, which I am trying to give him. Any comments you feel moved to make will be most welcome, but of course I entirely understand if you are not so inclined. Tim riley talk 22:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas, Tim, if that's a holiday you celebrate. I can't claim any professional expertise on the Church of England, but I do have a very-much-amateur interest. I may well be able to find some time for a close look. Thanks for thinking of me. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent! No rush whatever. Tim riley talk 09:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delighted to see you looking in, and looking forward to your comments. We must agree to differ over AmE-style commas after dates etc. As one brung up on Fowler and Gowers I stick to the BrE form, but to each his own, of course. Best, Tim riley talk 16:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Yes, apologies; I realised after I'd started adding them that we must disagree. Apologies if removing them is going to cause you some work - I'll leave them alone from now on. I find it much clearer, though you're not the first one to tell me I'm following an American English style... (I'm not a fan of commas before direct speech, either: 'She said, "Hello".' But I realise that they are widely accepted...) I'm part way through the article now, and will post some comments later this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delighted to see you looking in, and looking forward to your comments. We must agree to differ over AmE-style commas after dates etc. As one brung up on Fowler and Gowers I stick to the BrE form, but to each his own, of course. Best, Tim riley talk 16:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent! No rush whatever. Tim riley talk 09:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
GirthSummit (blether) 13:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Received, thanks; I'll get back to you soon! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for The Turn of the Screw (2009 film), "a 2009 BBC adaptation of Henry James's classic ghost story The Turn of the Screw. Is it just another TV film? Well, yes and no. The BBC's horror films and costume dramas are both well loved, and this is a nice example of both. Also, this holds special interest as a pre-Downton Abbey collaboration between Michelle "Lady Mary" Dockery and Dan "Cousin Matthew" Stevens. Finally, as this is an adaptation of James's novella rather than an original story, it holds interest both for fans of classic literature and for literary theorists."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Many thanks... I'm pretty proud of this one, and I think it holds up well four years after promotion! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Be proud! - Struggling with a FAC, - could you perhaps just comment as if nobody else did before? - Good wishes for 2020! (Keep looking, there will be more, a work in progress.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Classical music is a little outside my comfort zone, but something I'd like to know a little more about. I may be able to find some time to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, - the views of someone unfamiliar are valuable, showing how well the stuff can be understood. You don't have to read the whole thing, just mention what you notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Classical music is a little outside my comfort zone, but something I'd like to know a little more about. I may be able to find some time to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Be proud! - Struggling with a FAC, - could you perhaps just comment as if nobody else did before? - Good wishes for 2020! (Keep looking, there will be more, a work in progress.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
- see also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
Arbitration
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted
rather thanreasonably construed
. - Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
Miscellaneous
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
No rush, but wanted to make sure you knew that I responded to your comments (I'm terrible at pings and think I borked it.) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Yes, sorry, this completely slipped my mind. I'll get to it soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The article Across a thousand blades- a retrospective has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Compilation that doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS: a google book search doesn't show any sources; AllMusic doesn't have a review or even list it; the only "ref" is a link to a retail site; etc.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The WikiCup
I was wondering how the names of contestants get added the list of recipients for the newsletter. Do they get added by hand, because I have never thought of adding them? I regard you as a mine of information on the Cup, whereas I struggle to keep abreast of everything that needs to be done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I added everyone to that list manually. If people didn't want to be on the list, they could remove themselves once they received the first letter, as newsletters would contain a link to the list. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:Living on the Veg.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Living on the Veg.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2020
- From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium
- News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia
- Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta
- Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019
- News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations
- Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015
- From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report
February with Women in Red
.jpg)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
What do you think of the article The Right Side of History now?
I made major changes to the article, and refrained from using wording that may violate the neutrality of the article. It was not my intention to come off as biased towards Shapiro. I would very much appreciate your input, thanks! TheEpicGhosty (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @TheEpicGhosty: Hi; thanks for the note. At a very quick glance, the article is looking much improved, but I'll find time for a proper look through in the next few days! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: Alright, thanks! TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @TheEpicGhosty: Great, thanks for the quick fixes. The article is definitely moving in the right direction. I've done some copyediting and tagged some places where things are unclear (I've only tagged like that because I know you're looking closely). Take a look at them (and my edit summaries). In terms of neutrality: I wonder whether you may be overegging positive reception in the lead (I'm not saying you are, just raising it as a thought) and wonder whether you may be telling Shapiro's side of the story in the background section (ditto). The big neutrality issue that jumps out at me, though, is that I feel you're misrepresenting Rauch. You have more than double the length of "praise" drawn from his review as you do of criticism, despite the fact that his review is overwhelmingly negative - and I'm not even convinced that what you quote is praise. The reception section has been expanded, which is great, but at the moment it's a bit listy/quotey. (And I suspect "Straussian" is not going to be familiar to lots of readers.) As general comments, I encourage you to think again about your reference formatting (those big long quotes are a bit odd); to not lean too strongly on quotes in the text (it can disrupt the flow); to avoid - where possible - wikilinks within quotes (the MOS discourages them); to be aware of MOS:LQ (I made some more fixes); and to look again at MOS:DASH (you're still a bit off). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: Alright, thanks! TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Life on the veg
Hi. I've been watching the DYK nomination page and I think there may be some misunderstanding. All the other user is asking for is that you add a reference for the table of episode dates, special guests and recipes. At most that is a single reference per episode, or just one reference if there is a source that provides the full list on a page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @From Hill To Shore: Thanks for the note. I'm pleased to see that the article has been promoted now anyway. Naturally enough, that content came from me actually sitting down and watching the programme; just as we don't include citations for plot summaries, I don't need citations for this kind of basic information. This is reflected in the relevant guidelines. I suspect that the other user knows all this, but that they don't care. They'd rather play the bureaucrat and then feign shock when people won't dance for them. They're the kind of person better ignored. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Josh, I know that editor well and have worked with her closely and extensively, and I literally have never seen her do anything like what you're thinking is going on here. The queries she makes at DYK noms are always to prevent the nom being hung up or pulled at some later point. She's not a nitpicker. --valereee (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Thanks; I appreciate your candour. I have dealt with Yoninah, to my knowledge, literally twice, both in the last week or so. On the first occasion, she decided that a review I'd completed was inadequate, as it did not "explicitly confir[m] that the five main DYK criteria have been met". On the second, the multiple reviewers who were happy with the article were ignored because of something about "charts" being unreferenced and "Rule D2". Perhaps this was out of character, and/or perhaps my guess that this was an attempt to hold things up was mistaken... But these look like paradigmatic examples of officious nitpicking. As you and From Hill To Shore have both commented here, I'm probably overreacting, or have missed something, or both. Yoninah and I really got off on the wrong foot, but I don't want to scrap with anyone - hence my explicit disengagement. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, we've been doing two sets a day for two months now, twice our normal workload, to try to get out from under a backlog that had gotten big enough it was breaking things. In normal periods, we're understaffed. My temper is a bit frayed, and I would imagine I'm not the only one. :D --valereee (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Thanks; I appreciate your candour. I have dealt with Yoninah, to my knowledge, literally twice, both in the last week or so. On the first occasion, she decided that a review I'd completed was inadequate, as it did not "explicitly confir[m] that the five main DYK criteria have been met". On the second, the multiple reviewers who were happy with the article were ignored because of something about "charts" being unreferenced and "Rule D2". Perhaps this was out of character, and/or perhaps my guess that this was an attempt to hold things up was mistaken... But these look like paradigmatic examples of officious nitpicking. As you and From Hill To Shore have both commented here, I'm probably overreacting, or have missed something, or both. Yoninah and I really got off on the wrong foot, but I don't want to scrap with anyone - hence my explicit disengagement. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Josh, I know that editor well and have worked with her closely and extensively, and I literally have never seen her do anything like what you're thinking is going on here. The queries she makes at DYK noms are always to prevent the nom being hung up or pulled at some later point. She's not a nitpicker. --valereee (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Living on the Veg
On 15 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Living on the Veg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that viewers complained when the first episode of Living on the Veg, a vegan cookery programme, was broadcast with a sponsor's advertisements showing animal products? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Living on the Veg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Living on the Veg), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
March 2020 at Women in Red
|
   Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Leeds Town Hall
I see you're preparing the above article for FA, or similar. Congratulations on the quality of your efforts so far.
However, I foresee a potential problem with what we can and can't say about the architectural sculpture. As far as I'm aware, I am the only person who has ever made a long-term attempt to survey and understand the work of the Mawer Group. Although I have made all the evidence that I have so far found, available on WP en and Commons - deductions, synthesis and so on are not permissible here; just the printed evidence, which can be misleading. When the Civic Society created the blue plaques to Catherine Mawer and William Ingle, the CS made some basic mistakes, and unfortunately ignored the information I gave them - so the blue plaque statement about Catherine carving the Corinthian capitals is incorrect.
The primary confusing element in the citations or printed evidence is that the Mawer Group was from the beginning a studio, with the work of master sculptors each having equal prominence on buildings, sometimes working together on a piece, but mostly each specialising in their own niche skills and working on their own pieces. You can usually work out who did what, because when each sculptor died, his/her style immediately ceased to appear from then on. Thus we know that, for example, the three keystone heads on the back of the building (Great George Street entrance) were each completed as an individual work by each of three sculptors. The sheep's head is by William Ingle, the head with overhanging moustache and cavernous mouth is by Catherine Mawer, and the third head with visible top lip is by Robert Mawer. So it wasn't a case of Robert doing the whole of the ground floor on his own then dying, and Catherine and William for the first time picking up the chisel and doing the upper levels as the building rose. They were all working together from the beginning. There are two or three items which I'm not sure about, but most are pretty clear, I think. It has taken me some years and many site visits and hundreds of photographs to understand all this.
Forgive me if this is not interesting. But if you are available to visit the Town Hall before the article goes to FA, I would be happy to walk you around the building and explain what's what. You will of course need to develop your own opinion in your own way, but at least we could cut down some of the mistakes which have so far been made (not by you). I would not normally stick my neck out on this subject, but it's an important building, and they are important sculptors. It's worth at least attempting to get this right. As I have said, we can't say anything in the article without citations, but we can perhaps avoid saying anything which is untrue. Storye book (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Thanks for the note, but I think this is better directed at Rcsprinter123. I am reviewing the article at FAC (and making some edits in that capacity), but I'm not the author. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leeds Town Hall/archive1. Generally, as you know, we are interested in verifiability, not truth. We can't say things not supported by sources, but, equally, we can't really start removing things that are supported by sources (at least not on the basis that we "know" they're not true). It's a little trite, but what I've sometimes seen people say is something like "well, if you're right, go and publish what you're saying in a reputable publication, and then we'll talk". It does sound like you've done considerable research on this topic, so that may be something worth considering. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have posted a comment on Rcsprinter123's talkpage as you suggested. Storye book (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Replying here to keep things together. @Storye book:, I am impressed with the depth of your knowledge and very happy to learn we have such an expert on the building's sculpture in our midst, which is fortunate. However, we don't seem to have the sources. What we have to do is strike a balance between accuracy, but not overcomplicating and filling up the article with possibly irrelevant detail which is of no interest to the general reader, even if to architectural historians. That is who the source texts and further reading are meant to be for. For the matter in hand, the section of the article regarding sculpture appears to have been cobbled together from various sources (old newspapers, a death log?, Historic England) and not particularly cohesive or good prose, as is being picked up in the FAC. I don't know exactly the best way to head with it. Are you around Leeds? I am, so such a visit to the building and being able to discuss the mistakes made so far could be helpful. I want, as I said before, to make this the most accurate we can verifiably make it. Rcsprinter123 (comms) 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. You will be glad to know that I did not create some of the awkward prose about the sculpture in the Leeds Town Hall article; the word "huge", for example, is not mine. I think that it does matter that all of the Mawer Group who worked on the building lived and/or worked 10-20 yards from it for all their working lives. Yes I can reach Leeds easily, and I would be very happy to walk you around the exterior of the building and let you know where they worked and who carved what, and the evidence for that. That walk tends to take about 10 minutes if people are bored (as you suggest above), and about 20 minutes or more if they are interested enough to ask questions. You would need binoculars - it is a tall building. Please let me know how I should contact you to make arrangements? Storye book (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please use the Wikipedia email function. Rcsprinter123 (yarn) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Forgive me, I have been here quite a few years, but have never used this facility. However I have just enabled the function, so that others can email me. I have not yet worked out how to find other users' emails, though. So you are welcome to email me when convenient. I hope that's OK. Storye book (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please use the Wikipedia email function. Rcsprinter123 (yarn) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. You will be glad to know that I did not create some of the awkward prose about the sculpture in the Leeds Town Hall article; the word "huge", for example, is not mine. I think that it does matter that all of the Mawer Group who worked on the building lived and/or worked 10-20 yards from it for all their working lives. Yes I can reach Leeds easily, and I would be very happy to walk you around the exterior of the building and let you know where they worked and who carved what, and the evidence for that. That walk tends to take about 10 minutes if people are bored (as you suggest above), and about 20 minutes or more if they are interested enough to ask questions. You would need binoculars - it is a tall building. Please let me know how I should contact you to make arrangements? Storye book (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Replying here to keep things together. @Storye book:, I am impressed with the depth of your knowledge and very happy to learn we have such an expert on the building's sculpture in our midst, which is fortunate. However, we don't seem to have the sources. What we have to do is strike a balance between accuracy, but not overcomplicating and filling up the article with possibly irrelevant detail which is of no interest to the general reader, even if to architectural historians. That is who the source texts and further reading are meant to be for. For the matter in hand, the section of the article regarding sculpture appears to have been cobbled together from various sources (old newspapers, a death log?, Historic England) and not particularly cohesive or good prose, as is being picked up in the FAC. I don't know exactly the best way to head with it. Are you around Leeds? I am, so such a visit to the building and being able to discuss the mistakes made so far could be helpful. I want, as I said before, to make this the most accurate we can verifiably make it. Rcsprinter123 (comms) 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have posted a comment on Rcsprinter123's talkpage as you suggested. Storye book (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Sentientist Politics
Considering that there are over 100 unreviewed nominations at DYK, perhaps you could review one of them despite Template:Did you know nominations/Sentientist Politics having been passed without a QPQ being required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for the note. Happy to muck in when I have a free hour. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, 
Enwebb, 
Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
.svg){kind=small}
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 March 2020
- From the editor: The ball is in your court
- News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide
- Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews
- Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?
- Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed
- Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman
- In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019
- From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?
- Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark
- Gallery: Feel the love
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Opinion: Wikipedia is another country
- Humour: The Wilhelm scream
WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 
L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
Technical news
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
DYK for Sentientist Politics
On 4 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sentientist Politics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alasdair Cochrane's Sentientist Politics was the first book dedicated to extending cosmopolitan political theory to include animal rights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sentientist Politics. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sentientist Politics), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
--valereee (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Inside No. 9
Just noticed that none of series 3 of Inside No. 9 has been added to its Good Topic. You will need to make a supp. nom to add those in. GamerPro64 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: Thanks for the note. The fifth series concluded last night; alas, I'm a little behind! Might it be better to split the topics and have the episodes arranged by series? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- That might be a better option. GamerPro64 14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
GA nominees category tag removal
Hi Josh, Thanks for your recent edit of The Red Dragon (magazine) article. The Wales stubs category tag should not have been there but I wondered about removing the GA nominees category tag as it was added automatically by the system when the article was nominated. ~ RLO1729💬 00:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @RLO1729: I'm sorry to contradict you, but that's not true. It is added automatically to article talk pages when you add the good article nominee template, and the talk page of this article is indeed in that category. It's a category for talk pages, not article pages. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 at Women in Red
|
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 29 March 2020
- From the editors: The bad and the good
- News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report
- Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters
- In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story
- Discussion report: Rethinking draft space
- Arbitration report: Unfinished business
- In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"
- Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19
- From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own
- Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world
- Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive
 | April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on April 1, and will continue until the end of May. |
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
Technical news
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Miscellaneous
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Featured Article mentorship
Greetings, I came across your name in the list of editors who might be willing to act as mentors and would like to inquire as to whether you would have the time and interest to review/follow the article on the Biblioteca Marciana. The article has already obtained good-article status. I have also requested a peer review but have received no feedback to date.
The Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments. It's history, architecture, and art are all significant. I have attempted to present all of the information in a comprehensive format that can satisify both casual readers and tourists but also more specialized researchers. I would appreciate whatever guidance you could provide to improve the article and prepare it for a featured-article request. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Venicescapes: Thanks for the note. Looks like a really interesting and carefully researched article. Perhaps the best first step would be for me to offer some peer review comments with an eye towards FAC? I may be able to find time to take a first look today, but, if not, I'll let you know, and we can think about the appropriate steps going forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Josh Milburn Thank you in advance for whatever time you can dedicate and for your willingness to review the article. Have a nice day.Venicescapes (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Venicescapes: Just to let you know I won't be able to get to this today or tomorrow. Sorry about that. I will be able to take a look later this week - the weekend at the latest. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Josh Milburn Thank you in advance for whatever time you can dedicate and for your willingness to review the article. Have a nice day.Venicescapes (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sentientist Politics
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sentientist Politics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2020
- News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?
- In the media: Coronavirus, again and again
- Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit
- Featured content: Featured content returns
- Arbitration report: Two difficult cases
- Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night
- Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias
- Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors
May 2020 at Women in Red
|
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
- Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews- Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
- Lee Vilenski with 869 points,
Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, 
SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 
MX with 515.
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
Technical news
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Your GA nomination of Sentientist Politics
The article Sentientist Politics you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Sentientist Politics for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
DYK for A Case of Spring Fever
On 4 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Case of Spring Fever, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that A Case of Spring Fever, a film in which springs disappear, was parodied in an episode of The Simpsons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Case of Spring Fever. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A Case of Spring Fever), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Kantian ethics
Dear Josh. Do you think Kantian ethics can be a candidate of featured article? I have recently added some sections. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Ali; I'll try to find some time to take a look at this, but I'm a little oversubscribed on Wikipedia at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Two article
Hi J Milburn I write two article with wikipedia roles. Please I wrote two articles according to Wikipedia rules. 1. Draft:Arash Ghaderi 2. Draft:Hasan Rahnamaeian Please check them and accept if there is no problem. Warm regards. Omid ahmadyani (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Omid ahmadyani: Sorry, I'm afraid I can't help. I'm not usually involved in the AfC process, don't work on these topics, and I am very busy at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
TFA (June 2020)
This is to let you know that the Meinhard Michael Moser article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 18, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 at Women in Red
| June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 May 2020
- From the editor: Meltdown May?
- News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
- Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct
- Featured content: Weathering the storm
- Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction
- Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam
- Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book
- News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement
- Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
- Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime
- WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles
- On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Administrator changes
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
"Common Sense( Scottish Magazine)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Common Sense( Scottish Magazine). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Common Sense( Scottish Magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"Common Sense( Scottish Magazine)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Common Sense( Scottish Magazine). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Common Sense( Scottish Magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for Meinhard Michael Moser, " an Austrian mycologist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms, especially the difficult web caps. However, he also did important work elsewhere in the world (including South America) and on the ecological role mushrooms play in forests. He seems to have been an interesting character who led an eventful life, and he was held in very high esteem in mycological communities. I hope that I've done him justice in this article. I should say that I was inspired to nominate this here by Usernameunique's fascinating articles on 20th-century academics, and I owe thanks to Sasata, who will be remembered by FAC regulars as the "mushroom man" who wrote scores of fungal FAs during his time on Wikipedia from 2008-16."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I also enjoyed seeing this on the main page today. Nice work on the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt and Usernameunique: Thanks! I forgot this was coming up, but I'm pleased to see it hasn't suffered any damage at the hands of main page readers. I'm really pleased with how the article came together. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 at Women in Red
|
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 28 June 2020
- News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine
- Community view: Community open letter on renaming
- Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd
- In the media: Part collaboration and part combat
- Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals
- Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow
- Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation
- Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths
- News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice
- Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking
- Humour: Cherchez une femme
- On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
Technical news
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
- The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
- Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.
Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 
MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Cat People
Hi J Milburn. All apologies for messaging you about this again, but is there anything more to do on the Cat People review? I understand if you are preoccupied. No pressure if you need more time to tackle the review! Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrzejbanas: Sorry, I missed that you'd responded there; my mistake. I'll add this to my to-do list! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
FAC mentor?
Hi J Milburn,
I noticed that you were listed as an FAC mentor here with an interest in, among other fields, religion. I was wondering if you had the time to look over this article of mine—Korean creation narratives—for the FA criteria? Thanks in advance! (And of course you don't need to feel obliged if you don't have the time, IRL or otherwise.)
Cheers, Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Karaeng Matoaya: That's a really fantastic topic for an article, and I'd love to see it featured. I'm afraid I am pressed for time at the moment, so can't commit to taking on a mentorship role. I can give a few quick comments, though:
- There are problems with the links in footnotes 22 and 53
- Be aware of MOS:BADITALICS. The use of italics on Korean script (including in the reference list) might raise some questions.
- You cite a number of student theses. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for some advice on this. In particular, I suspect the MS thesis could raise some eyebrows.
- You cite some anthologies. I wonder if you should cite the particular chapter rather than the book as a whole (as you do with the English-language chapter in the further reading?)
- Hope this is helpful. I may be able to find time to have a proper read through, but I can't make any promises!! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: Thank you so much, this was already very helpful! The footnotes have been fixed, all instances of italic Korean script have been removed for transliteration per MOS, and one of the three student theses has been removed in favor of a published journal one. The use of the MS thesis has also been brought down to two citations for obvious facts.
- Just a question on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, if you're alright with that. I'd like to keep the MS thesis because it contains the only overview of the historiography WRT the topic. (The only other general overviews of Korean creation narratives were published in the 1980s and 1990s, when the field was just beginning to form—indeed, these overviews effectively created the field—and there was no historiography at all to speak of.) I note that in the WP:SCHOLARSHIP page, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." But the study of Korean creation narratives is a very small field even in South Korean academia, and entirely nonexistent outside that country. The only paper that would reasonably be expected to cite the MS thesis is Shim J. 2018, which does indeed take note of the thesis, but would this count as "significant scholarly influence"?
- In any case, thank you already again! --Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Karaeng Matoaya: It sounds to me that if the MA thesis has been cited approvingly in peer-reviewed scholarly research, that might well be enough, especially if (as you say) there is very little academic work in this area. The two things to remember are 1) This might be a conversation you need to have again as part of the FA review process; and 2) It would not be a suitable source for particularly controversial or surprising claims (including negative claims about living people). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and an MA thesis isn't going to count as an extraordinary source, even if this one might be OK for less controversial material. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive
|
The Invisible Barnstar | |
| Thank you for completing 2 reviews in the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 60%. Regards, Harrias talk 08:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC) |
August 2020 at Women in Red
|
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
The Signpost: 2 August 2020
- Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?
- COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
- News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin
- In the media: Dog days gone bad
- Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
- Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom
- Traffic report: Now for something completely different
- News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users
- Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil
Removing cow-dog picture (discussion in Speciesism article)
Your opinion is sought here: Talk:Speciesism § Removing cow-dog picture. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Stala & SO. albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Stala & SO. albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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.
About A-class topicons
Hello, my name is Rebestalic
I've seen that you recently removed the A-class topicon on the article for Nina Simone. There is, however, an A-class topicon alongside a Good Article topicon in Battle of Pusan Perimeter--should I remove that, as per what you did?
And I haven't found any guidelines on whether to display A-class topicons or not. Take a look at the content assessment page though, notice how the A-class field has its own topicon displayed, whereas the B, C, Start, Stub and List ones don't
I apologise if I bothered you Rebestalic[leave a message....] 11:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Rebestalic: I am not aware of any policy or guideline recommending their inclusion. We have included stars for featured content for a long time, and, after a discussion, including them for GA articles. But it seems that some people have taken it upon themselves to include them for A-class articles without any centralised discussion or consensus. (Maybe there was and I missed it, but my guess is not.) They should be removed; if people want them there, we need to have it written into the guidelines. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well you are a broom 😂 So I shall follow your recommendations
- Thank you for the help and very fast reply, Rebestalic[leave a message....] 11:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Rebestalic: I've just had a look; they were only used on a handful of articles. Mostly articles about military history (and I know the relevant WikiProject makes good use of A-class). I can see why people would want the icon present, but I think there would need to be some site-wide consensus on use, rather than some individual editors deciding to include it. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see. Would you like me to start a forum or something on displaying A-class topicons? Perhaps the Village Pump? No, the Village Pump site says it's not for discussion... hmm Rebestalic[leave a message....] 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you think that there should be A-class icons present on articles in that way, then yes, you should propose it somewhere. WP:VPR may not be a bad bet. If think not having them is for the best, you don't need to do anything. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see. Would you like me to start a forum or something on displaying A-class topicons? Perhaps the Village Pump? No, the Village Pump site says it's not for discussion... hmm Rebestalic[leave a message....] 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Rebestalic: I've just had a look; they were only used on a handful of articles. Mostly articles about military history (and I know the relevant WikiProject makes good use of A-class). I can see why people would want the icon present, but I think there would need to be some site-wide consensus on use, rather than some individual editors deciding to include it. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Roosilawaty
chris would be the best if he was prepared to do it... the wp en article - the problem is the id article has literally no refs - the big problem of all wikipedia id articles... JarrahTree 13:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: I agree. There do seem to be sources out there (lots of hits on Google Books, for example) but they're not in English. The Indonesian article has a list of films and her birth/death dates, which is a useful start. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
File:Tibia curta.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hi J Milburn,
This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Tibia curta.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 4, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-04. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Tibia insulaechorab, the Arabian tibia, is a species of gastropod mollusc in the family Rostellariidae, native to the western Indian Ocean. It was first described by the German malacologist Peter Friedrich Röding in 1798, the type locality being the Red Sea. He included it in the family Strombidae, but this large family was later split and the genus Tibia was transferred to the family Rostellariidae. This photograph shows a dorsal view of a T. insulaechorab shell. Growing up to 20 cm (8 in) long, including the elongated siphonal canal, it is highly sought after by collectors because of its attractive appearance. Photograph credit: Hans Hillewaert
Recently featured:
|
File:Pietro Vermigli by Hans Asper.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hi Josh,
This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Pietro Vermigli by Hans Asper.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 8, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-08. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Peter Martyr Vermigli (8 September 1499 – 12 November 1562) was an Italian theologian. Born in Florence, he entered a Catholic religious order, but through study he came to accept Protestant beliefs about salvation and the Eucharist, and, to satisfy his conscience and avoid persecution by the Roman Inquisition, he fled Italy for Protestant northern Europe. The Latin inscription in this 1560 oil-on-canvas portrait of Vermigli by Hans Asper translates to: "Florence brought him forth, now he wanders as a foreigner, that he might forever be a citizen among those in heaven. This is his likeness, but a painting cannot reveal his heart, for integrity and piety cannot be represented by art." The painting is now in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery in London. Painting credit: Hans Asper
Recently featured:
|
Orphaned non-free image File:Butcher the Weak.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Butcher the Weak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
September Women in Red edithons
|
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 30 August 2020
- News and notes: The high road and the low road
- In the media: Storytelling large and small
- Featured content: Going for the goal
- Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way
- Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics
- News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online
- Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
- Arbitration report: A slow couple of months
- From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;- Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Biblioteca Marciana
Hello. I hope that all is well. I renominated the Biblioteca Marciana. If you'd like to weigh in on the FAC, it would be greatly appreciated. Renaissance libraries don't seem to pique much interest.Venicescapes (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Venicescapes: Thanks for the note. I did see it -- I'm a bit snowed under right now, but I will definitely make an effort to find some time. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
October editathons from Women in Red
|
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 27 September 2020
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
The Signpost: 27 September 2020
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
File:Uncanny Tales logo.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Uncanny Tales logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!
| | October GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the October 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on October 1, and will continue until the end of the month. |
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
- Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
Cefnllys Castle
Hi Josh, I was wondering if you'd be able to take a quick look over Cefnllys Castle. I've recently rewritten it from a stub and my hope is to submit it to FAC soon. I've requested a peer review and Dudley Miles has been kind enough to provide some feedback there, but would appreciate any thoughts/input you may have, particularly as I haven't been through the FAC process before. I appreciate you're busy at the moment, so no worries if you feel you're unable to do this. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 21:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jr8825: Thanks for the note. That looks very interesting. I can't make any promises, but I'll see if I can find some time. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Roadkill
In this paper there is a footnote which claims you "argue that it’s permissible to eat roadkill or animal flesh obtained through dumpster diving" [2]. In that paper it references your own paper "Animal rights and food : beyond Regan, beyond vegan", in it you say "it remains an open question whether AR philosophy might permit the scavenging of corpses." Do you know of any other recent papers talking about roadkill in relation to animal rights, vegetarianism or veganism? The Wikipedia articles for those three do not mention roadkill anywhere. I think it might be worth adding somewhere. I think Lewis Gompertz was the first animal rights advocate to support consumption of roadkill. We do have an article on roadkill cuisine but no mention of the debate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Yes, this is one of my favourite topics! There are a handful of us writing about this. I agree that I didn't quite say what Abbate claims. Donald Bruckner's "Strict vegetarianism is immoral" is probably the most important paper, along with Abbate's response. It'd be worth looking through the list of papers that cite Bruckner. You'll often see roadkill talked about alongside dumpster diving and other freegan practices. So, off the top of my head, Abbate discusses roadkill in her contribution to Bob Fischer's Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics, and you'll find discussion in both Bob Fischer's The Ethics of Eating Animals and Andy Lamey's Duty and the Beast. I suspect more will appear over the next few years. Fischer and I have something under review, and I've just been invited to contribute to a book on "new omnivorism" (that's Lamey's term -- it basically means "people who eat meat for reasons of animal rights". Bruckner's position, according to the arguments in the roadkill paper, is a great example, but Davis [of "combine harvesters kill mice" fame] is the classic example.) One of the nice things about Bruckner's paper is that he points out that lots of arguments in favour of veganism will often include an exception for roadkill, and lists some examples. Singer explicitly discusses it in a few places, for example, but never with much sophistication. You'll find it nodded to in lots of places without too much focussed attention. I'm sure I will have mentioned it in the context of pet food somewhere, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, I have had a look at some of these sources you mention. I believe a section could be added to the roadkill cuisine article about this. I will probably add it next month some time. I also believe Davis would qualify for a Wikipedia article. I see that the debate has now shifted beyond veganism amongst a handful of animal rights authors. The topics seem to be roadkill and backyard chickens (which you have covered), eating crustaceans, molluscs or insects etc. James E. McWilliams has been writing about all of them, [3], [4] but hasn't authored any papers about it yet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Memory Garden albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Memory Garden albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 13:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
December with Women in Red
|
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 29 November 2020
- News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"
- Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia
- Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia
- Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria
- Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election
- News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker
- GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large
- Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup
- Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail
- Essay: Writing about women
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.