User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2018/06
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (6th nomination) edit
Hey King of Hearts
Please can you look again at your no consensus decision for the above AfD? Surely with such a long running AfD as this, you have to decide whether it is notable or not, rather than choosing no consensus? This article will be brought back for its 7th deletion nomination soon enough, I'm certain of it, perhaps because I'm very likely to do it myself. If nothing else, could you relist instead of no consensus? Many thanks. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just face it, the article won't be deleted. People have already tried five times without success. Relisting is only done when further discussion would be helpful in determining consensus, which I did not find to be the case here. All that needs to be said has been said. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, with respect. Your closing decision is "No consensus", not "keep". That suggests an element of doubt. I urge you to relist or to allow a further period of discussion in some way or other. This article has been deleted before under a different name, it most likely shouldn't have been re-created on that basis alone. Many thanks. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- In the interest of not wasting editors time by rehashing the same arguments over and over again with no conclusive result (or a "delete" result that was only obtained through luck of the draw), a "no consensus" close is meant to be binding for at least several months. Otherwise, there would be no reason to specify WP:NPASR in discussions that receive little participation; the fact that we would need to specify "no prejudice against speedy renomination" means that by default there is prejudice against speedy renomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, with respect. Your closing decision is "No consensus", not "keep". That suggests an element of doubt. I urge you to relist or to allow a further period of discussion in some way or other. This article has been deleted before under a different name, it most likely shouldn't have been re-created on that basis alone. Many thanks. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Redirect? edit
How did this AFD end in a redirect when there were far more Keep votes and no consensus to redirect? Especially at the end it seems like there was a consensus to keep as the last 8 votes were 6 Keeps and 2 Redirects. Of the 16 total votes, only 5 were votes to Redirect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gina_Ortiz_Jones_%282nd_nomination%29
Lonehexagon (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I hesitate a little to question a closure that didn’t go my way but maybe best to say I’d also be grateful for more explanation? To me the close read less like an evaluation of the community discussion and more like your own opinion on the subject’s notability—to which you are entitled but as an ivoting editor rather than as a supervote close, of course... Help me see what I’m missing here? Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: Hello, I was wondering if you could take a second look at this close? Lonehexagon (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I count 7 votes to delete/redirect and 9 votes to keep, so within the discretionary range. While there is plenty of coverage of her (which the "redirect" side acknowledges), the "redirect" side made stronger arguments that her notability is only relevant in the context of the election. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for your reply. I only see 5 official !votes for redirect in bold on that page: LtNOWIS, XavierGreen, Enos733, Bearcat, SportingFlyer. For Keep there are 9. Additionally, the article was improved dramatically over the course of the discussion, and therefore I believe it's important to consider what people have said after the changes when determining consensus. If you look at the course of the discussion, it goes like this: Redirect, Keep, Keep, Weak Keep, Redirect, Redirect, Delete, Keep, Redirect Significant changes to article, Keep, Keep, Keep, Redirect, Keep, Keep. You mentioned that the "redirect" side made stronger arguments, but if you look at the votes, 6 of the 9 Keep votes directly quoted official policy guidelines, specifically WP:GNG. On the flip side, most of the Redirect votes don't list any guidelines, and if they do they link to unofficial essays that have not been vetted by the community. Could you take another look considering that information? I also wanted to ping @Innisfree987: since I see they were interested in this discussion, too. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes... I think what's tripping me up is that community opinion seemed quite divided on whether coverage being election focused was in fact disqualifying. I can certainly see taking a view one way or another (obviously I did!), but what's harder for me to see from either this discussion or the one just preceding is whether community consensus actually landed on one side or another. Closes would, I hope, be in the vein of "this appears to be the community's view [if in fact community consensus has been reached]" as opposed to "I think this is the correct view". I understand this can be a sticky wicket, and less easy in practice than in theory to ask someone to make a close without taking a point of view, but still, do you see why it might feel disconcerting? To make sure I'm being perfectly clear--I don't think there was consensus on my side either. Or for that matter, consensus against me, which I'd be glad to leave be and move onto other things. Rather, there seemed to be substantial disagreement and that is why I've been confused about the basis for concluding there was consensus... Innisfree987 (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @King of Hearts: I hope you're having a good day so far. Happy Birthday! I don't mean to bug you and I realize you might not see this until tomorrow, but I was wondering if you had a chance to look at this? Lonehexagon (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes... I think what's tripping me up is that community opinion seemed quite divided on whether coverage being election focused was in fact disqualifying. I can certainly see taking a view one way or another (obviously I did!), but what's harder for me to see from either this discussion or the one just preceding is whether community consensus actually landed on one side or another. Closes would, I hope, be in the vein of "this appears to be the community's view [if in fact community consensus has been reached]" as opposed to "I think this is the correct view". I understand this can be a sticky wicket, and less easy in practice than in theory to ask someone to make a close without taking a point of view, but still, do you see why it might feel disconcerting? To make sure I'm being perfectly clear--I don't think there was consensus on my side either. Or for that matter, consensus against me, which I'd be glad to leave be and move onto other things. Rather, there seemed to be substantial disagreement and that is why I've been confused about the basis for concluding there was consensus... Innisfree987 (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for your reply. I only see 5 official !votes for redirect in bold on that page: LtNOWIS, XavierGreen, Enos733, Bearcat, SportingFlyer. For Keep there are 9. Additionally, the article was improved dramatically over the course of the discussion, and therefore I believe it's important to consider what people have said after the changes when determining consensus. If you look at the course of the discussion, it goes like this: Redirect, Keep, Keep, Weak Keep, Redirect, Redirect, Delete, Keep, Redirect Significant changes to article, Keep, Keep, Keep, Redirect, Keep, Keep. You mentioned that the "redirect" side made stronger arguments, but if you look at the votes, 6 of the 9 Keep votes directly quoted official policy guidelines, specifically WP:GNG. On the flip side, most of the Redirect votes don't list any guidelines, and if they do they link to unofficial essays that have not been vetted by the community. Could you take another look considering that information? I also wanted to ping @Innisfree987: since I see they were interested in this discussion, too. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I count 7 votes to delete/redirect and 9 votes to keep, so within the discretionary range. While there is plenty of coverage of her (which the "redirect" side acknowledges), the "redirect" side made stronger arguments that her notability is only relevant in the context of the election. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: Hello, I was wondering if you could take a second look at this close? Lonehexagon (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2018 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).
Administrator changes
None
Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington
Guideline and policy news
- Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
- Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.
Technical news
- IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
- There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
- It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
- A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
Miscellaneous
- In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The MonoBook skin has been optimised for mobile devices. It now looks different. [1]
- Planet Wikimedia collects blogs about Wikimedia. It will now use the Rawdog feed aggregator to do this instead of Planet. [2][3]
- Redirect links in Special:WhatLinksHere now link to the original page and not the target page. This was done earlier and changed the used messages on some pages. This was a problem for wikis that customized the message. A new change fixed this by using the old messages with one more parameter for customization. Wikis that already changed their customized messages will have to move the customization back again. [4]
Problems
- You will not be able to edit some wikis between 06:00 and 06:30 UTC on 13 June. You can see if your wiki is one of them.
- MassMessage did not work 24–28 May. This is also why last week's Tech News was late. [5]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 June. It will be on all wikis from 7 June (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 5 June at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
-
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. This is planned to happen in June or early July. [6][7]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Happy Birthday edit
|
Hey, King of Hearts. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Clockist (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- In the Wikipedia app for Android or iOS users can create reading lists. The reading lists can be seen on different devices if you are logged in to your account. There is now a browser extension so you can add pages to your reading list from a web browser. At the moment it works with Firefox and Chrome. [8]
- There is a new version of Pywikibot. Pywikibot is a tool to automate tasks on MediaWiki wikis. [9]
Problems
- The MonoBook skin was changed to make it work better for mobile users. This caused some problems. The change was rolled back to fix them. The new version is now back on the wikis. MonoBook users can opt out from the new responsive design. [10]
Changes later this week
- The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. For most wikis this will happen on 18 June. For the rest it will happen on 25 June. [11][12]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 June. It will be on all wikis from 14 June (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the Readers Web team IRC office hour. There you can discuss tools to contribute on the mobile web for the existing MediaWiki skins. The meeting will be on 18 June at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 June at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- You will be able to move local wiki files to Commons and keep their original data intact. This is planned to come to the first wikis in June.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
| Wednesday June 20, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. You are also invited to Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design @ Pratt Institute School of Architecture, Saturday, June 16! | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Deletion review for Gina Ortiz Jones edit
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gina Ortiz Jones. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Syntax highlighting has been a beta feature on Wikimedia wikis with text written from left to right. It is now a normal feature. It is based on CodeMirror. [13]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 19 June at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- Some old web browsers will not be able to read the Wikimedia wikis. This is because they use an insecure way to connect to them. This means that we get less security for everyone else too. This affects about 0.08% of all traffic to the Wikimedia wikis. This affects for example those who read Wikipedia on a PlayStation 3. [14][15]
- The new filters for edit review tools and interface for watchlists will leave beta. Because there is no new MediaWiki version this week it will happen on 25 June for most wikis. For the rest it will happen in early July. [16][17]
- All wikis that have not already done so will switch to use the Remex parsing library on 5 July. This is to replace Tidy. You can help fix remaining errors. [18]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- PAWS, our JupyterHub system, got an upgrade and a logo. Several bugs should be fixed.
Problems
- When a link text was in italics or had other formatting you could sometimes not edit it in the visual editor. This has now been fixed. [19][20]
Changes later this week
- Content translation users who translate between any two of Arabic, English, French, Japanese and Russian will be asked to be part of a research project. This is to create better tools for translating articles. [21]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 June. It will be on all wikis from 28 June (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 26 June at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
23:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 June 2018 edit
- Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?
- Op-ed: What do admins do?
- News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania
- In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress
- Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page
- Featured content: New promotions
- Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed
- Traffic report: Endgame
- Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa
- Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry
- Humour: Television plot lines
- Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors
- From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing