User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2020/08
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020 edit
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- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.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.
(Untitled) edit
I see 'king of hearts' edited your article 1 hr ago, Sir/ madam What changes have you made ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupakgyawali (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Spicy Fifty AfD edit
Greetings, Your Majesty! :) You recently closed the AfD discussion on the Spicy Fifty cocktail, and even at the risk of invoking your Royal displeasure, I would like to appeal against the decision.
Firstly, regarding the AfD closure itself:
- The votes were fairly evenly both ways (slightly more in favour of keeping, in fact). Isn't it so that where no consensus emerges, as was the case here, the default outcome should be to keep? (And yes, I realise that the weight of the delete arguments may have been stronger in policy terms, but please see my last point below regarding this.)
- The merge message in the article now states that there was "consensus to merge". However, AFAIK merging wasn't even proposed, so how could there be such consensus?
Secondly, regarding the policy behind this:
- The question at the heart of the discussion was failure to establish WP:GNG. I found and added to the article more references, of which at least one is fully RS, and was hoping that would be enough to effect WP:HEYMANN, but this seems to have been largely overlooked. As it stands, the Spicy Fifty article now has more and better references than many other IBA cocktail articles, yet it is the only one being proposed for merger.
- The merge decision also creates a number of problems for the cocktails category, some of which I've tried to outline on the proposed destination article talk page so won't repeat them here. TL;DR = Inclusion on the list of IBA official cocktails (the leading world authority in what comes to cocktails) should IMHO automatically establish notability, and that should be regarded as the notability criterion for cocktails, even absent other RS references.
In light of these points, any chance you would reconsider this, Sir? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- In an AfD where the notability of a subject is at stake, there are only two sides: the side arguing that the subject deserves an article, and the side arguing that it doesn't. Here the side arguing that it deserves an article primarily advanced an argument that was not based in policy, and the references presented do not constitute significant coverage. As for the ultimate result, any "delete" !votes that do not attempt to argue why the content is inappropriate can be assumed to support a merge if there is an appropriate target. Note that Mz7 is actually advocating a merge, despite their bolded !vote. Regarding even more poorly referenced cocktails, there's WP:OSE; maybe those should be merged as well. If you believe that IBA status should confer automatic notability, then feel free to draft a Wikipedia:Notability (food and drink) and propose it for community acceptance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Kister edit
I'd like to take mild issue with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Kister. I didn't get a chance to weigh in, but I agree that the subject fails notability and should not have a stand alone article. Where I disagree is the choice to delete rather than redirect. There were three calls for a redirect or merge to VMEbus, while two people said they did not see a clear target. No one indicated what another target might be nor did anyone argue that VMEbus was inappropriate. He is mentioned in that article as a creator of what became an international standard, arguably a career highlight. I don't think a deletion review is needed if you would consider simply allowing a Jack Kister redirect to be created. And thanks for taking on these no-win closing assignments.--agr (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with User:ArnoldReinhold. I was considering changing to keep since there are two sources with substantial coverage. Still weighing things as I take this seriously. Now that the article has been deleted altogether (total surprise to me, given the direction of the discussion!), I do not even have access to the references I invested in and are missing in the other articles. Could you reopen the AfD for more discussion? This has had just ONE week and there wasn't any clear consensus. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored the redirect and listed it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Jack Kister for further discussion. However, consensus is clear that he should not have an individual article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 August 2020 edit
- 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
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- All queries to the Wikidata Query Service failed between 17:50 and 17:59 UTC on Thursday 23 July. Some queries failed during a longer period. [1]
- Interlanguage links were ordered incorrectly for the past few weeks. This problem was also mentioned in Tech News two weeks ago. The problem is now fixed. [2]
- There is a problem with the global preferences for the "Use Legacy Vector" option. Developers are working on fixing it. [3]
- A bug in the Wikibase extension had disabled the "move" and "create" types of protection in the main (Gallery) namespace on Wikimedia Commons. New protections could not be added, and existing protections were not enforced, allowing some page moves and page creations that should not have been possible. This has now been fixed. [4]
Changes later this week
- The video player will change to be simpler and more modern. This week, the current beta feature will become the video player for everyone on most non-Wikipedia wikis. The old player will be removed. [5]
- Users'
global.jsandglobal.csspages will now also be loaded on the mobile site. You can read documentation for how to avoid applying styles to the mobile skin. [6] 
In the MonoBook skin, the searchGoButtonidentifier is nowsearchButton. This may affect CSS and JS gadgets. Migration instructions can be found in T255953. This was previously mentioned in issue 27.- Bot operators can use Pywikibot to regularly archive discussions. The behavior when the bot uses
counterto prevent large archives was changed. [7] 
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 4. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 5. It will be on all wikis from August 6 (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) edit
Hi! Asking you because you seem to be involved in large discussions on that page and are fairly neutral (or at least do a good job appearing neutral). I just put a message at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) about how to handle specific views on how WP:USPLACE affects decisions about primary topics. I'm hoping it can be an actual productive way of determining consensus, but I don't really think it's a proper situation for an RFC or something like that to make sure we get input. Would the best approach be to leave it be and let folks respond and take it from there?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spicy Fifty edit
Not a bad close; but I think no consensus might be a better one. Partly because having a merge tag on an article indefinitely doesn’t really serve readers at all and I don’t think reflects consensus, and second because I don’t think I was arguing IAR. I was arguing to apply the GNG the way it’s applied to most articles about individual food and drinks: leniently. Thats the norm, not a BLP standard for an article causing zero harm. Anyway, I’d agree there isn’t a keep consensus, but I don’t see a consensus to delete, and I don’t think a merge is a good outcome either. If someone wants to merge it, they can initiate that discussion on the talk page.
As an aside, I’ll admit I think the GNG should be scrapped as useless, but I usually argue that to delete. Finding a case where a strict reading of it prohibits something useful and I’m arguing to keep isn’t my usual cup of tea! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- GNG is the sole notability criteria to be used when there is no WP:SNG relevant to the topic. As I explained above, if the community agrees with you that IBA cocktails are automatically notable, or that food and drink articles should have a more lenient standard of "significant coverage", then it should be possible to make a Wikipedia:Notability (food and drink) containing one or both of those points and have it be accepted as an official guideline. That's what I would do if I were you before trying anything else. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Except there was no consensus that it failed the GNG. I made the argument that there was sufficient coverage for what we expect from the topic area, and that the IBA statue granted that credibility. I’ll admit I also made the argument that even if it didn’t meet the GNG, that shouldn’t matter one bit, and spent a lot of time rebutting there GNG supremacy claims. Others cited that reasoning. Others disagreed, which is fine. These things aren’t clear: but that’s no consensus, not a consensus at the AfD to merge. I didn’t see anyone suggesting a merge there, and while it might be a good idea, that doesn’t require an AfD close: that’s a talk page discussion. Especially when none of the participants called for a merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Except that it's stretching the meaning of "significant coverage" too far. An extraordinary interpretation of a guideline requires extraordinary evidence or an extraordinary ratio of !votes. As for consensus to merge, see my comments in the conversation above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, six people disagreed with you that it was stretching too far. You also made up a merge target that’s not actually a good target and now the reader has to see a banner that’s unlikely to be removed in a sensible timeframe. That’s a vote, not a close. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I heavily discounted the !votes which were simply based on the assumption that IBA cocktails were automatically notable (not found in any policy or guideline) or asserted that there were reliable sources without specifying which ones or explaining why they are reliable and constitute significant coverage. With the unequal weighting, I found a consensus to delete. And as long as the "delete" side fails to advance an argument as to why the content is inappropriate and/or why a redirect is unsuitable, the closing admin can always turn a "delete" result into a "merge" or "redirect". The target was in fact proposed by Mz7. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, six people disagreed with you that it was stretching too far. You also made up a merge target that’s not actually a good target and now the reader has to see a banner that’s unlikely to be removed in a sensible timeframe. That’s a vote, not a close. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Except that it's stretching the meaning of "significant coverage" too far. An extraordinary interpretation of a guideline requires extraordinary evidence or an extraordinary ratio of !votes. As for consensus to merge, see my comments in the conversation above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Except there was no consensus that it failed the GNG. I made the argument that there was sufficient coverage for what we expect from the topic area, and that the IBA statue granted that credibility. I’ll admit I also made the argument that even if it didn’t meet the GNG, that shouldn’t matter one bit, and spent a lot of time rebutting there GNG supremacy claims. Others cited that reasoning. Others disagreed, which is fine. These things aren’t clear: but that’s no consensus, not a consensus at the AfD to merge. I didn’t see anyone suggesting a merge there, and while it might be a good idea, that doesn’t require an AfD close: that’s a talk page discussion. Especially when none of the participants called for a merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we aren’t going to agree, so took it to DRV asking for it to be overturned to no consensus to let the content process play out. (See: [8]). For what it’s worth, I’d consider the delete arguments to have a significantly weaker founding in policy since the GNG isn’t a policy but an approximation of real world significance, but DGG and I are the loudest voices on that, so I always just vote rather than close. Thanks for discussing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
ILL edit
Thanks for this. Seems {{ill}} doesn't get nearly enough use. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2020 (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
- FileImporter and FileExporter became standard features on all Wikis during the first week of August. They help you transfer files from local wikis to Wikimedia Commons with the original file information and history intact. [9]
Problems
- The mobile skin displays a message at the bottom of the page about who edited last. This message showed raw wikitext. This has now been fixed. Some messages in Structured Discussions and content translation may still appear as raw wikitext. Developers are working on it. [10]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 12. It will be on all wikis from August 13 (calendar).
Future changes
- All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 13:30 and 15:30 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [11][12]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Poker question edit
Hi! I play a lot of computer chess but have never really gotten past the basics with poker. Can you recommend a good program that I can play against?, Maybe with a tutorial? I have zero interest in betting or playing against other humans. I just want to learn the strategy. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- See Cepheus (poker bot): "Public web access to observe and play against Cepheus is available." Personally I've never used it, as I prefer to play against humans. Also, the strategy for heads-up poker is very different from full ring poker; I am not aware of any program that lets you play against 8 robots. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Sun Aug 16: Great American Wiknic NYC & Beyond edit
| August 16, 3pm: Great American Wiknic | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our annual summer Great American Wiknic, this year being held virtually. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! Featuring artist-Wikimedian Sara Clugage's "Picnics: An Outside History" for a cultural exploration of picnicking, knowledge and society during the national panel in the first part. We encourage you to call in for the second part from a local park or natural site and share it on the video stream, as well as sharing your favorite picnic grub or other special foods with us. 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. The Wiknic is taking the place of "WikiWednesday" this month, so we will also include salon and knowledge-sharing workshop aspects.
We especially encourage folks to share your parks and foods on screen, and add your 3-minute lightning talks to our roster for the Zoom portion, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 22:29, 13 August 2020 (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
- If you revert an edit using the undo link your edit is marked with an
undotag. This will now only happen if you don't change anything in the edit window before publishing the undo. This is to keep users from marking edits as undos when they actually do something else. [13] - The new OOUI version will not work with Internet Explorer 8. This means the wikis will look strange and not work well in Internet Explorer 8. This was reported in Tech/News/2020/17. This is because keeping the wikis working with very old browsers creates other problems. [14]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 August. It will be on all wikis from 20 August (calendar).
Future changes
- All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 13:30 and 15:30 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis next week. This is a reminder. You can help by translating the announcement message. [15][16]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Might you please help me, as an admin, with misleading and bias in Wiki? edit
To make a long story short, I tried to edit the page related to 'hate group' multiple time to make it more diverse & sources-conforming, but all the time moderators or another 'watchers' undid it to one previous version represented only selected by someone narrative that does not even stay in line with today's point of an authors research center. As a person who doesn't like the use of only one side of a complex problem, I can't stay with it but now try to solve the problem within Wiki, not within media and related public instruments.
More longer:
Does today's English Wikipedia provides support for biased views and only selected forms of hate?
> Welcomes everybody to the discussion below 'Hate group' paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group#Our_#Wikipedia_is_not_one's_Political_Instrument.
Summary: today's version looks misleading, American-centrist (nothing mention phenomena of hate outside the USA and Southern Poverty Law Center) and moderators looks American chauvinist and supporting only nazi's or related old white supremacy symbols or flags, whereas even the major domain research center, SPLC as mentioned before, shows that have is more inclusive and diverse (in a negative way of this concepts). Moreover, the previous article authors misleading at FBI official state quotation to hate crimes to prove their own view. Hatred is not American or other today's rich country movements privilege, it has no borders or faces. Only people who do hate have these signs of division. And hate definitely has not only black/brown/multiracial/white/WASP/yellow or whatever you 'Americans' like to use to divisive yourself.
>> My heart is bleeding from English Wikipedia Censorship. I participated in the Wiki community of 3 languages (one from the beginning) for 10 years, but never saw this before. My ancestors, who were imprisoned to labor and concentration camps because of their nationality, ethnicity, and views, also would not approve your totalitarian informational policy of global source for the sake of polarization and mobilization of the population within one country before their local elections.
>> * Before: https://imgur.com/esXx8ja (misleading symbols with no sources, strange position of moderators that hate have the face and that is the only one (needed?) face)
>> * After: https://imgur.com/UrYMQQ0 (paraphrase misleading definition and unreasonable but conscious incorrect FBI citations, flags, and emblems with a source from a major source all other article formulated on)
>> * Letter about Wiki unjustice: https://imgur.com/IyeRmex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3 (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- This editor has posted the same, or virtually the same, message to 7 administrators' talk pages and to a number of other talk pages. They have received answers at at least two of those pages (I have better things to do with my time than check every one of them, so it may be more than two) and have been directed to Talk:Hate group. JBW (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2020 (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.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 August. It will be on all wikis from 27 August (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2020 edit
- 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?
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- This is a reminder. All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 14:00 and 15:00 UTC. Please check on the details on the announcement message. [17][18]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)