User talk:PresN/Archive 26
 | 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. |
WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:
The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; 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 (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
TFL notification – July 2021
Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that List of suines – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 26. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Hi @PresN: I have recently re-formatted this list (United States presidential elections in Arkansas) and added various sources, etc. Just wanted to ask you that would the list have reasonable chances of meeting the FL criteria, provided that some other minor changes are made? If the structure and other details about this article would be cleared, I would implement changes in all the articles throughout the series of 51 articles. Would appreciate any comments. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: Not doing a full review, but it looks pretty good- only major issue that I see is that the political party of candidates is only indicated in the table by color, which doesn't meet WP:ACCESS guidelines (e.g. the information isn't there if you have colorblindness or vision issues). --PresN 19:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PresN: Yeah, but I now added double dagger, hash and other symbols as used in some other FL's. Just wanted to confirm that do I need to all similar symbols/characters for all 25 parties? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: Yeah, it's unfortunate, but you're going to need something- right now, if you're colorblind, you can't tell political parties except for the few you've added symbols for, and even some of those (black text on blue doesn't really show up). I recommend using parentheses + letters instead after the person's name (e.g. Ulysses S. Grant (R))- some of the obscure parties might need more than one letter, but they also don't show up as much. --PresN 22:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PresN — I have added parentheses + letters instead of symbols for all 25 parties, and the sorting still looks fine. Should I go ahead and nominate it? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and nominated it. Would appreciate your comments on its nomination page. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PresN — I have added parentheses + letters instead of symbols for all 25 parties, and the sorting still looks fine. Should I go ahead and nominate it? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
List of crocodilians is looking good, btw. Everything in the list series List of plant genus names (A–C) has been promoted, but I got a complaint at WT:WikiProject_Plants/Archive72#List of plant genus names a while back ("complete and utter foolishness" was mentioned) because they misunderstood the purpose of the list. I really think the name should be up to the plants guys ... but they haven't responded recently and I don't want to keep asking. What do you think of a name change to List of plant genus names with etymologies (A–C), to match List of plant family names with etymologies? Does it cause any annoying bookkeeping problems for you to change the name of an FL after promotion? - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Dank: I have no opinions on the name, but no, there's no issue with renaming FLs- we just adjust the link at WP:FL whenever we notice the change. --PresN 17:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks much, I'll leave a comment on the list's talk page and see if I get any responses. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- No objections so far, so I'm moving those 4 pages. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, for the sake of transparency: I just solicited a review for my current nom from Tim riley; he says he'll review it soon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
"WBFS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WBFS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#WBFS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – voidxor 23:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Michael Jackson videography
Hello, it's been one month now since I submitted this list as an FLC. It has been almost four weeks now since the page got its last comment and second support vote. I wonder why there hasn’t been any more comments since. Can you please have a look at it?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- @TheWikiholic: The FLC coordinators have no ability to compel people to review nominations. You might want to ask around relevant wikiprojects or people who work in the area, or else just continue to wait. --PresN 19:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
FAC mentoring for Survivalcraft
Hi PresN, I'm doing on a peer review to bring Survivalcraft to Featured Article status. I see that your name is on the list of users willing to mentor on FAC nomination, so I'm wondering if you could be my mentor...thanks. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeromi Mikhael: I don't have a ton of time, but I can give you some general advice about FAC and this article in particular:
- The biggest thing to be prepared for at FAC is that no matter how good the article is, reviewers are going to find things to fix, and it can feel a little overwhelming at first. No matter how long the list is, just take a deep breath and try to fix it all in a timely manner without getting defensive- people don't like to review nominations that have a lot of un-resolved issues or combative behavior. Note that you don't have to do exactly what a reviewer asks for, you can disagree and explain why you chose to do something else.
- If a nomination goes a couple weeks without much traction from reviewers, you can/should post around at WT:VG and elsewhere asking if anyone is willing to take a look, so that the nomination doesn't get closed due to lack of response.
- Overall, the article needs an in-depth copyedit before it goes up- there are lots of tense issues and awkward phrasing, as well as an often almost-informal tone.
- Also, paragraphs should have a bit of weight to them- 1 or 2-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged.
- You should go through the gameplay section with an eye towards "if someone who never played this game or Minecraft read this, would they understand by the end how the game works"- right now I think it's a little hard to follow; for example it never actually says if it's voxel/block-based like Minecraft or if you just get blocks for mining a deformable world.
- The Survivalcraft 2 section should be after Reception, as it's not part of the development of the original game.
- The article seems to have a general slant of "is better than Minecraft" or at least has a lot of things Minecraft doesn't, but Minecraft has changed a lot since 2011- it would be more accurate to say that some people thought it was better/different than Minecraft at the time. Your reviews bear this out- the later they are, the less impressed they were.
- Speaking of reviews, typically the reception section is organized by theme, grouping what critics thought about different aspects of the game- you instead have one paragraph per review.
- Overall, one of the biggest issues (which I'm sure you're aware of) is that there's just not that much there- a good chunk of the article is a changelog of releases, there's only 4 reviews, etc. I'm not sure there's much you can do about that, but if there's any sources you can dig up to add, that would help.
- Hopefully this helps. --PresN 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
We are back!
No stubs, no starts, no lists, no cleanup tags. And we got some new GA’s, Topics and an FL. Things are lookin good! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello PresN, I think you made this page an featured list. What does it mean under the games? Those in nails. eg:
ZZT
("Town of ZZT", "Caves of ZZT", "Dungeons of ZZT", "City of ZZT")
OverKill
("Edrax", "Gallifrey", "Hoth", "Voltair", "Pax Verde", "Unknown!")
×Elvorixtalk 06:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Columns, Vol 9
Wondering if you were available at some point for some column making magic as we try to get this articles to GA or keep them there!
Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Arbitration
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
RE:93rd Academy Awards FLC Accessibility Review
Hi there,
I addressed your concerns regarding the accessibility review for the 93rd Academy Awards in relation to its impending featured list promotion. Thanks for the comments.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Some assistance?
I finally decided to nominate Lumines: Puzzle Fusion for featured. I wanted to ask you if you wanted to take a look and see what I can improve on it. I asked you for the sole fact that you have experience in creating featured articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
What is this?
While working in the Darker than Black articles I keep finding that the official website has a links below "最近のトラックバック" involving analysis of episodes. However, I am unable to find who is the author of such analysis. If the creator happens to be associated with Bones or Aniplex then it might help a lot to expand the production section of the two television series and the OVA. Could you give it a look? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion regarding FTRC
Hey, I wanted to reach out to you regarding your comments at the FTRC for the Hugo Awards. It seems like you're a bit frustrated with me (though I could be wrong – I know how hard it can be to convey tone over text alone). I sincerely did not mean any ill will by nominating the topic for removal and did not realize you were the nominator; it was my mistake for not checking the FLCs beforehand. My sincerest apologies for any disrespect you may have felt. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 
The Rambling Man and 
Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being 
Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild, 
Lee Vilenski, 
BennyOnTheLoose, 
Amakuru and 
Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. .jpg){kind=small}
Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, 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). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
List of Yuri on Ice episodes FLC
Hi. I've tried making the changes you asked for regarding List of Yuri on Ice episodes, although your guidance was not exactly clear so I'm unsure if I did it right. ISD (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. I've made some changed but I'm not sure how much you did or what still needs to be done if anything. ISD (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
Thanks a lot for your note on WP:FLC/United States presidential elections in Utah/archive1, which I duly understand, and would surely take care in future nominations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help
Thanks for cleaning up after me on these lists. I should stop being so sloppy. J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
List screen reader accessibility redux
Howdy!
Earlier this year, you provided assistance on formatting list articles to increase their accessibility. On the List of British divisions in World War II, I entered the following template for each subsection. A recent edit removed the "sronly" part of the below, and the edit stated that it was not functioning correctly. Could you review the template/article, to help me address the accessibility issue? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
| Existing formation or date created | Date formation ceased to exist | Divisional insignia | Formation name | Locations served | Notable campaigns | Notes | Source(s)
+Airborne divisions |
|---|
- @EnigmaMcmxc: I went through and made fixes myself (it's really hard to describe what needs to be changed over text!) - I believe the problem with the "sronly" was not that the template has an issue but that the caption has to be before the header row (e.g. the very first line of the table code) or else it does nothing; I don't really know why. In any case, I re-added the captions, but left them visible as there was a bunch of text above them; if you disagree you can re-add the sronly template and it should work fine now. --PresN 14:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation, and more importantly for the edit! The edit history is very useful moving forward, so I can whip a few similar articles into the shape and ensure their accessibility.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
TFL notification – October 2021
Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 1. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season
Hello, I'm just wondering about the progress of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. I had seen it was still open on article alerts (the oldest nom for the weather project) and it is nearing the 3-month marker. NoahTalk 13:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
Technical news
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
Arbitration
- A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
- Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
- Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
- The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Requesting Review
I was hoping you might have a minute to review the “Software and services” section here I proposed for the Zendesk page with a disclosed COI about a month ago. The editor that approved most of my proposed changes said they were too busy with grad school to circle back, so I was hoping you might be willing to take a look. Tskillin (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Request for explanation
Hello Sir,
Hi, yes, Sir, please explain yourself! You are not appearing to make edits in good faith, a violation. Please be prepared to defend yourself in a court drawn from your peers. Your edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode-ray_tube_amusement_device
Most recently
16:37, 20 October 2021 PresN talk contribs 11,204 bytes +17 Undid revision 1050913106 by 99.165.35.182 (talk) rv OR undo Tag: Undo
with UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH is clearly in violation of Wikipedia. Violating Wikipedia with false allegations isn't just the sin of bearing false witness, it is also an attack on the foundation of Wikipedia values. That means that having been identified as engaging in behavior that is not consistent with the values of Wikipedia, the account you use to transgress the principles that underlie the foundation of our community is subject to review!
Now, see here! Explain yourself! You have been called to account for making unsubstantiated claims of original research when in fact I have removed such claims and clarified the facts! Your assault on the facts is simply an untenable assault on the entire community, not just me as an editor, not just this article in particular, not just this edit in particular or your presumed authority in designating my clarifying edit as "original research" but the ENTIRE COMMUNITY that has developed concepts of authority, authenticity, reputation, and reliability, not just for editors and articles but sources and the authors of those sources as well.
Now then. Explain yourself to the court!
99.165.35.182 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- @99.165.35.182: The lede is summarizing a sentence that has 3 (now 4) citations to explain itself. Deciding you know better because cited statements are "the authority of the mob" is original research. Please stop. --PresN 20:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Proposed new draft for the Jon Baker page
Hi PresN, I’ve been looking for an editor willing to review a proposed draft rework of the Jon Baker (producer). I noticed you’ve helped others with similar requests and was hoping you might be willing to chip in. My hope is this draft removes the promotionalism issues, while improve the timeliness/completeness of the page. Daizypeach (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
Your recent editing history at Cathode-ray tube amusement device shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 81.157.153.208 (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm getting a little sick of your "I didn't hear that" and insistence that you are correct due to your own opinion. There are four sources in the article for the sentence covering the fact that CRTAD's status as a "video game" is debatable. You have... that you're insisting that it must be, with no sources. So you keep reverting, over several IP addresses and possibly one account. Please stop. --PresN 15:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Be careful with your allegations or you may be blocked for WP:ASPERSIONS as well as now being at 4RR. I am in the UK. 99.165.35.1 is in California, USA and Wtshymanski is known to be in Canada and is also known to be a professional engineer. Not the same person at all. There are three of us who say that you are wrong and it is your insistence that the device is not a video game that is sickening. The CRT displays a video signal. That is the only thing CRTs are capable of doing. Even the Y signal in an oscilloscope is in reality a video signal. Any reference that claims otherwise is not reliable. 81.157.153.208 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
So thats what IDHT stands for. Panini!🥪 13:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Promotion of List of bovids
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Technical news
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
Arbitration
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.
WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:
- The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points- Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
- Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
- BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
- Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
- Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points
All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
User:PresN/dillos
I had no idea there were that many species. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
- The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
- The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
So, you raised a concern at WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant species epithets (A–B)/archive1 about the criteria for generating rows in the featured list List of descriptive plant species epithets (A–H). There are a couple of reasons it was done the way it was done, but as long as there are no objections, I'm on board with the strategy of listing every descriptive species epithet from all the sources used, and I'm working on that now. Since that page was already at the maximum workable length, I'm hoping we'll wind up in the end with 4 featured lists in the series: A-C, D-H (renamed from A-H), I-P (renamed from I-Z) and Q-Z. Originally, I was planning on leaving the A-H and I-Z lists alone, but I see your point and I'm happy for the excuse to pull in more from Stearn. Note that at the end of WT:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_22#Renaming the plant lists, I was asking the general question of whether it was okay (in the context of an existing 4-page list series of featured lists) to just do two additional FLCs if reviewers were making requests that resulted in expanding a 4-page series to a 6-page series, and there were no objections, so I think it will work to create the new 4-page series by renaming the two lists, making the necessary changes, and doing two FLCs for the two new pages, but let me know if you don't agree. 3 FLCs rather than 2 is also an option. (If someone objects that I'm asking reviewers to do more work than usual, it's actually less than usual, or at least, less than usual for my FLCs ... most of the text in the 4 new lists will be unchanged from the 2 existing lists.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Dank: Honestly, given that the process is a) expanding the scope of the list(s) roughly doubling the number of items (which... doesn't actually require a new FLC, as we don't have a "no post-FLC changes" rule), and then b) splitting the list(s) in half solely for size concerns... I think you could actually just not do another FLC at all and just give the star to all 4. Generally if an FL is split because it got too long, we just call both halves FLs; the exceptions have been when the original FLC was a long time ago with so many changes that it's not even clear that any of it should still count as "reviewed", but in this case you put the A-H and I-Z parts up just last year, so in this case so unless you really want to my opinion is that you don't need to bring anything back to FLC. It seems like you're taking 2 lists and making them 4, but really you're taking 1 list (on two pages) and making it 1 bigger list (on 4 pages)- we only even had it as two FLCs because it's too much to make reviewers look at multiple pages of a list at once. --PresN 01:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Outstanding. That works for me. I'll get it finished up as soon as I can and then share the results. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
PresN, an update: I did a little culling (in these edits) to eliminate the epithets constructed from two nouns, such as lepturoides (from Greek for "hare tail") ... now both pages are consistent on that point, so hopefully I won't need a four-page list. I'm slowly working on a one-page list of species epithets derived from colors. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that List of cervids – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 14, 2022. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Progression rainbow/manual
Template:Progression rainbow/manual has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
| Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive |  |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. | |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
Merchandise giveaway nomination
|
A token of thanks
Hi PresN! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
|
 |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)