User talk:Srich32977/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Srich32977. 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. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
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.
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
|
The 2019 Cure Award |
| In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid misleading edit summaries
As an experienced editor, you should know better than this. Entirely deleting any mention of this part of his public life from the lede (despite it being covered in a substantial part of the article body) is not a mere "copy edit". Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HaeB: Yes, I've got some experience on WP. And the vast majority of my edits are minor. In this case I read the Christian Science Monitor article on Schultz and decided that this aspect of his life was quite minor. It was either do the "right thing" -- fully explain the edit -- or move along with the "efficient thing". I chose efficiency. But I do not regret my edit, nor my opportunity to thank you for your good catch. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
GOCE March newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
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 Easter
 |
or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 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.
Recent edit to Bath School disaster
Some of the changes in this edit puzzle me:
- Many of the publication dates within cites were changed from a specific date, say March 2009 to the year 2009. But March 2009 is the verified date of publication and the form of Month/Year is not against MOS.
- The google book URLs were changed from, for instance, https://books.google.com/books?id=0JVFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false to https://books.google.com/?id=0JVFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA150#v=onepage but the second/changed URL resolves to the 1st/original URL so is the change necessary? Also code like "&q&f=false" was stripped out of the changed URL but when the changed URL is put into a Search it includes the &q&f=false statement.
I wanted to change the edits back to their more complete form, but if there's a MOS reason etc for your adjustments please let me know - I learn new stuff around WP all the time. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: Let me look at this more carefully. Thanks for asking. – S. Rich (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: – Repsonses:
- 1. the google book URLs go to the same page, with or without &q&f=false. Why the cite bot does this I don't know. But it's a great bot because it fixes all sorts of problems.
- 2. The month of publication for book isn't very relevant to the average reader. So when we look for Arnie's 2009 book at Amazon, Google, Open Library, LCC, or via OCLC 830676408 they all give us 2009. (The date of copyright) 2.a. I'm looking for consistency in the citations. Years only for books is great, but we need months and days for magazines & newspapers. (Sometimes I see day of the week and particular times in citations. What a bunch of clutter!)
- 3. Arnie's book is in the refs 6 times and with two different ISBNs. So which should the reader use if they want verification? And do the different ISBNs have different page schemes? I hope we aren't giving the readers a multitude of formats. E.g., do the different cites to to Kindle, Hardback, Paperback versions? 3.a. IMO Arnie should get one citation, and we us the : page template for each different bit of info.
- So, I hope your concerns are addressed. Thanks again for asking. – S. Rich (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The extra bit of code in the URLS isn't really an issue, they both get the reader to the same place.
- Thank you so much for pointing out the different ISBNs. No, it wasn't different formats at all, I'm not sure where those ISBNs crept in from. After you mentioned it I checked the information and cites & corrected them to the paperback version I have (which is 978-0-472-03346-1). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
AutoEd edits
Hi, I've seen several of your edits on my watchlist recently which don't seem to be doing anything useful. In particular, moving white space around, removing underscores from piped links, removing empty parameters from templates, and changing ISBN to isbn don't produce any change to the rendered page and should be avoided unless you're making a substantive edit at the same time, per WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:MEATBOT. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have reported the ISBN= to isbn= change, which was probably recommended by Citation bot, at the bot's talk page.
- The removing underscores from piped links edit was not cosmetic; it fixed a curly apostrophe and added a year to a citation, and maybe fixed a WP:LISTGAP problem (Caveat: I don't really understand LISTGAP).
- The other two edits do appear to have been cosmetic and should not have been published. Please be more careful in previewing edits before saving cosmetic edits, Srich32977. You've been down this road before and have been blocked for similar behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
Anniversaries ... today is the birthday of Claudio Monteverdi and Hans Herbert Jöris, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for article improvements in May! - DYK our list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles? - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
B. Franklin
Hi Srich32977, I left a note about B. Franklin's date of birth on the relevant talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin). Your input is most welcome. Shams lnm (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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
GOCE June newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events
Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports
March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Srich32977,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
June
 | |
Vespro della Beata Vergine |
Thank you for improving articles in June. I can proudly present a FA, quite a gift after a year without, and a FL is in the making, comments welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
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
Thank you in July
 | |
| pale globe-thistle above the Rhine |
Thank you for improving articles in July! Now a FTN is open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Please do not change the term to describe an incorporated community, because they legally vary from state to state, and defined by laws in each state. For example, in Kansas an incorporated city is always a city, even if the community shrinks below the current minimum population to newly incorporate a city, until such time that a tiny community decides to disincorporate. In Kansas, a "community" is either a city, or an unincorporated community, or a ghost town; in many other states it is more complicated. Page 9-3 to 9-8 in the following PDF describe the legal terms for communities in each state, as of 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20141020110606/https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/Ch9GARM.pdf • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
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.
G. Oatman for you!
.jpg)
Legend has it, his first name is Gary, the unknown and long-lost survivor of the clan. Some say that goat still roams the hills in search of Mary Ann to this day. You formatted one citation with metadata on Olive Oatman and it got me on a kick, thinking "okay if Srich329999999999 wants it then I guess I better". And I forgot to stop. So thanks for infecting me with oatmania. I had no idea it was such a mess all this time. Olive and Eva thank us too.
— Smuckola(talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Clinical trial terminology: Phase vs. phase
Hello - when the specific trial stage is named, as in 'Phase I' research, Phase is capitalized, but not when it is the subject or object (without level) in a sentence. Examples here. Note: in COVID-19 drug development, the capitalization is (and had long been) correct in the last paragraph of the lede, but is not a correct capitalization in the caption of the graph under New chemical entities. This had been extensively and carefully edited over the life of this article. Thanks for trying, but more editing is now needed. Zefr (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Quite interesting. I think I've now parsed the Phases and phases correctly. – S. Rich (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Treaties
Hello I don't know if this is one right way to write you. But I saw your username in the page history. Page in question is about peace treaties. I removed some content from that page, as it seems just as some personal activism. I checked that user who added that content and seems to the same user Johncdraper added own writen content. And also seems as just an advocacy or own ideas without broad or significant coverage or support.And I explained my edit by reading "what wikipedia is not" and also what is relevance etc. Please if you can check to I did not made some mistake about removing content. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.185.225 (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- You did fine. Thanks for the heads-up and the helpful edits. I've gone to the PT page and made various other corrections. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Page-ranges in refs
Regarding this edit, what MOS specifies that page-ranges should use the shortened form of the second value (example: |pages=365–67 rather than |pages=365–367)? Last I knew, WP went with full values nearly everywhere by default, and I can't find anything in {{cite journal}} specifying to shorten it (instead, its own examples use full value). DMacks (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Srich32977, you have been asked not to do this in the past. Once again, removing full page ranges is contrary to MOS:NUMRANGE, and imposing a new CITEVAR by changing all of these non-ambiguous page ranges to ambiguous ranges is not acceptable. Please fix any edits in which you have changed these page ranges, and change any script you are using so that it does not make such page range changes in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- This edit also contained MOS:NUMRANGE and MOS:POSTABBR errors. I have reverted it. Please fix your script. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh FFS
[1]. Fix your script so you stop doing wrong things with page-numbers in cite templates. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Seconded. Please stop.
- Also, please slow down and inspect your diffs before saving. This edit, unless I am missing something, appears to have made no changes to the rendered text and fixed no errors. Meanwhile, five citation errors remained unfixed. (And another one.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Look at WP:AED. It adds spaces so that "automated screen readers discern list markup". Look at [2], it had various MOSDASH errors and citation (e.g., page-number) inconsistencies. I make gnomish fixes, there is no need to go overboard with rollbacks that re-introduce the errors. – S. Rich (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- When you have been asked to stop doing something that contravenes MOS, it is incumbent upon you to fix your script or your editing method. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Help Requested: Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Another Wikipedian came by and tagged the Pritzker Military Museum & Library for primary sources, etc. and Pritzker Military Presents as an AfD.
Can you help address the respective issues? Useful information for PMML is on its talk page. TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
I just wanted to thank you for welcoming me back in 2018. It definitely helped me learn the ropes and I'm not sure if I would still be here without it. ~ HAL333 04:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC) |
Why did you change the era style in the Sumer article?
I noticed that a couple of days ago you changed the era style in the article Sumer. I checked the Talk page, and the archives to see if anyone had agreed to change them on the article, which had been consistently BC for years, and I couldn't even find people talking about it. I have restored the BC/AD era style on the article for now, but if I missed something please let me know. NDV135 (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@NDV135: I noticed a mix of BC and BCE usage, so I switched in order to achieve consistency. Since there is no consensus to go with BC/AD, I recommend that we switch back to BCE. The article has nothing to do with Christian or Western Europe history, so Before Christ is irrelevant. Moreover, high-quality research bodies like the Smithsonian Institution regularly use BCE/CE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- That isn't a rule, if you want to switch it, feel free to bring it up on the talk page. But there is not anything in the manual of style that says that that is what should happen. You can check it for yourself here. It also talks about the fact that you need community consensus before changing it. It is just the way that this website works. I will report you to an admin if you keep making changes like this without permission, but I hope that we can reach an understanding here, since sometimes people make mistakes. But even if we did change the article to BCE/CE then I would be breaking the rules since there has been no community consensus on this, and without I don't have the authority to make that change. If you look at my Talk page, you will see discussion about the article Akhenaten, where a similar era style change occurred, and how it was considered a BC/AD article due to long term stability, and no community consensus. Don't worry about the other discussions, I changed a couple of era styles I shouldn't have because I didn't realize that there were archive pages on talk pages since I was kind of new. Also if you look back through the history of the Sumer article you will find that those BCE/CE's were placed onto a BC/AD article, making them the mistakes. NDV135 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@NDV135: Actually there is a "rule". MOS:ERA says "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article." When an article has a mix of notation there is no "established" style. (I'm not going to review article histories to find "mistakes". Such mistakes only dis-establish the style.) Now that you've taken out the BCE's you can assert "established style". (And I'm not edit-warring over the issue.) But my assertion, supporting BCE–CE consistency as the established style is valid. Your favorite notation style will stand as long as you watch the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
But there was an established style only a few weeks before you made your changes, and it is YOUR job if you are making these edits to find which you should be harmonizing to. Also you clearly don't get what is meant by mix, that article had a single new section someone had recently written with a different era style there are articles where every paragraph is different from the last and you will see things like AD 1 - 250 CE, but that is not what this was like. It is your job to determine era style, and if you aren't willing to do so, please just don't touch the era styles. I spent 20 minutes looking through the history and Talk page before I made that edit, and you should have done the same. NDV135 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
150,000 edits compared to 140 edits. Please stop trying to lecture me. Good-bye. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Please, just one last thing, I have an example of an admin (Doug Weller) reverted changes where I did the exact same thing you did, a couple days before someone had changed a few of the dates on the article Fort Ancient. The era style had become mixed, however the admin rightly restored it to the previous BCE/CE. Since, like when you changed Sumer the page had only been mixed for a few days or weeks before I harmonized the wrong way, and I trust his opinion on this. NDV135 (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
August
 | |
| Sunflowers in Walsdorf |
Thank you for improving articles in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for David Graeber
On 5 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Graeber, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Distributed-element circuit
What is the rationale for this edit. Spaced dashes are not actually used in the title of the works you altered. SpinningSpark 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just realised that you made a similar edit to the article in October which I reverted. [3] Don't just repeat edits without explanation. SpinningSpark 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
G13
Hi Srich32977. I have reverted your edits (example: 1) to Pee Tern's sandbox pages. None of these are even remotely eligible for WP:CSD#G13, so please don't tag them again. Thanks, FASTILY 04:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Please help me out. Pee Tern created lots of sandbox pages which now look like abandoned drafts. I caught notice of them when looking at some categories related to templates. It seems Pee Tern added categories to some of the drafts. See Category:Anthropomorphic_status_codified_templates. To reduce this bit of WP clutter I thought a speedy would work. (I did get a bit of validation!) Well, to continue my effort, shall I WP:T3, TfD, "colon-ize" Pee Tern's template drafts, or what? Thanks. I – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- We don't delete user pages of longstanding editors, even if they appear to be "abandoned". It's fine if you remove the categories from the user pages however. -FASTILY 05:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I shall do the needed colon-izations to PT's [drafts]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Hopefully my stumbling about with Pee Tern's abandoned templates is over. The categories which I came across are now colonized out. Thanks for your guidance. 06:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
September
 | |
| Dahlias in Walsdorf |
Thank you for improving articles in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Trump administration political interference with science agencies
Would you be okay with this title: Trump administration politicization of science? Johncdraper (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: Nope. What is "politicization"? It implies something B-A-D. Scientific method itself is a process of dispute and debate. And the scientific process is not helped by injecting public opinion. Let's let the science stand on its own, without trying to bolster scientific results with non-scientific posturing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking specifically of this reference, but there are any others. I mean, I could build a whole reflist demonstrating this if need be. Still no good? Johncdraper (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: Great source – thanks! And it reinforces my point. Take DDT for example – "many of the health concerns of DDT have shifted away from science ... to emotionalism [paraphrased]." We would not create an article titled Politization of malaria control or President X administration political interference with malaria control efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: Something along the lines of science policy agenda? Johncdraper (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: There is only one item on Mr. Trump's agenda. "What? We Exclaim!" (Or "Who? We Exposit.") For a clearer answer we can look for articles on other presidents. Which of them are titled "President Q's policy agenda on RST"
- @Srich32977: There is a long-established series of Foreign policy of the... administration, with the last iteration being Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. There is also a series of ... Policy of Donald Trump administration, e.g., Economic policy of Donald Trump administration. So, Science policy of the Trump administration would make sense, right? Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: I agree. It sets the stage for a NPOV exposition of what those policies are. And within the article the critics will have their say about how good or evil the policies have been. (So, let's cut & paste this discussion over to the article talk page. Then I think we could soon WP:BB and change the article title.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: There is a long-established series of Foreign policy of the... administration, with the last iteration being Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. There is also a series of ... Policy of Donald Trump administration, e.g., Economic policy of Donald Trump administration. So, Science policy of the Trump administration would make sense, right? Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: There is only one item on Mr. Trump's agenda. "What? We Exclaim!" (Or "Who? We Exposit.") For a clearer answer we can look for articles on other presidents. Which of them are titled "President Q's policy agenda on RST"
- @Srich32977: Something along the lines of science policy agenda? Johncdraper (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: Great source – thanks! And it reinforces my point. Take DDT for example – "many of the health concerns of DDT have shifted away from science ... to emotionalism [paraphrased]." We would not create an article titled Politization of malaria control or President X administration political interference with malaria control efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking specifically of this reference, but there are any others. I mean, I could build a whole reflist demonstrating this if need be. Still no good? Johncdraper (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
October harvest
 | |
Dona nobis pacem |
Thank you for article work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)