User talk:Valereee/Archive 39

This 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.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

non-regulars answering edit requests at articles that have plenty of regulars

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Copy-paste from Talk:Killing of George Floyd

EEng wrote:

(Idea 1) One way would be a template with parameters X and Y. When present on a talk page, it causes edit requests on that page to not appear in the patrol queue (or whatever they call it) if there have been at least X edits (non-bot edits) to the talk page within the last Y days. Something like that.
(Idea 2) Or maybe that should be the default all the time, no template needed.
(Idea 3) Or maybe either of the above, plus if the request remains unanswered after Z days, then it goes in the general queue of edit requests needing answering.

Unfortunately this will take some technical work, not sure how much though. How about you and I commit to remembering to raise this at VP.

I really like 2+3, but 1+3 might be an easier sell. An added benefit is that this represents lessening the burden on editors patrolling requested edits.

Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests? It's possible the regulars at an article could be owny enough that they just mark all requested changes as answered/not done. Right now they'd have to answer those requests within minutes to ensure no fresh set of eyes shows up. Changing it to at least Z days might be seen as a downside? —valereee (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the right question is Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests when there are editors active on the article's talk page on a daily basis? Answer: No, and in fact it's a net negative. Semi-protected articles (and semi is, I suspect, by far the most common form of protection) are that way because there're (shall we say) lots and lots of people editing, and therefore available for handling edit requests.

So on reflection, I wonder how useful this patrolling-by-drive-by-editors actually is. Unless there's some flaw in my logic above (and I stand ready to be corrected on it), I would think that the vast majority of edit requests, if patrollers would just leave them alone, would be answered within 24 to 48 by editors active on the page. E Eng 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} - noninvolved is defined in a few dictionaries, but not in Oxford. I checked to see how it's trending and it flatlined.

Just curious...maybe it's just me being picky but wouldn't uninvolved editors be the better choice? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, totally —valereee (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNEVOLVED. E Eng 01:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, there are 10,000+ semiprotected articles. Orinx has 2 watchers, 1 of whom visited recent edits. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And interestingly...there are ~20 current requests at semiprotected edit requests. One, at Balkans, is a month old. Eight are from today. I'm sure some patrollers come in and start with the fresh requests, figuring some of them will be easy to handle. And there doesn't seem to be any instructions for people on how to handle requests, unless it would be somewhere other than Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests_and_mandatory_copyright_attribution —valereee (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(Saw the comment on the article's Talk Page, and followed the discussion here) As another possible idea (independent from the ones above), might it help to write a polite essay on the problem of drive-by patrolling editors who flip edit requests to "answered" while posting useless and/or unhelpful comments that frustrate newbies? The intended audience would be the problematic drive-by editors themselves, explaining to them why they cause more problems than they solve by their behavior (including examples). Then create a WP shortcut to that essay page (perhaps "WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL" or something more catchy), and when you see a drive-by editor make a problematic edit like that, just revert them with a polite edit summary like "Reverted good faith but unhelpful comment per WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL". Doing so would 1) remove their useless post, 2) flip the "Y" back to "N" on the answer (to attract a better answer from a more knowledgeable editor), and 3) politely direct the drive-by editor to a well written page where he or she can learn why their short-sighted and problematic edit was reverted. I suspect most of the problematic editors would learn quickly and stop doing that after a single instance; only obtuse patrollers would go right back to the Talk Page in question to combatively revert your revert of their useless post. Would instituting something like this be worthwhile, and gradually educate the community over time to stop making those kinds of unhelpful posts that mess up the edit request process? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, it's not a bad idea. The problem here was that the person patrolling, who was just trying to help, probably should have just recognized the situation for what it was: a requested edit that may or may not be a reasonable change to ask for, to an article currently being heavily edited and with hundreds of active watchers. I believe the correct decision is move on, as someone brand new to this article is unlikely to be able to answer almost any edit request better than someone already working here. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng invited me here from the article talk because I was "missing the point". Conceptually, I have no problem if we want to optimize the edit request process site wide. However, the edit request response that spurred this was fine. While the request did not cite any sources, we don't need a response that "us regulars know everything there is to know, it's been discussed ad nauseaum, and consensus ain't changing." Perhaps there is something we missing before, there is new information, or this editor has a new angle? Or maybe they're just wrong or trolling. In any event, inviting them to establish consensus is a neutral response that encourages good-faith editors and does not feed any would-be trolls.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I guess I don't agree that the response was fine. It felt to me like someone who decided to help out at requested edits, dropped in, made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response, and moved on to the next request. It wasn't helpful to someone making their first edit. What does 'please gain consensus before suggesting this alteration' even MEAN to someone making their first edit, much less their first edit request? That is a very high-traffic article with HUNDREDS of watchers, so there are many people available who understand the article, and answering an edit request there right now probably requires some level of familiarity or willingness to become familiar with it. This isn't some West Texas high school protected because someone keeps changing the name of the principal from Patsy to Pussy and someone's making an edit request to ask we change the stated location because they just put up a new building. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

... made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response ... Maybe, maybe not. I as a semi-regular on that page would likely have said something as neutral and avoided outright saying the OP was wrong or assume I was necessarily up-to-date on the latest sources. You do have a point of regulars throwing the word "consensus" around, which might not be accessible to a complete newbie, but neither is pointing them that a way to an FAQ or giving them the impression that consensus cannot change because I am all wise (well ... I am, but ...) While I'm not saying edit request patrolling can't be improved, I am saying that the response in this specific case was fine, even if the (speculated) rationale behind it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, believe me, I've seen regulars at a page give unfriendly and unhelpful and sometimes deliberately obtuse responses to edit requests. Let's for the sake of argument leave aside the quality of this particular response; I'm not even sure it's important. My feeling is that on a page that is currently being heavily edited and is actively watched by hundreds, an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request. Would you be more likely to agree with that? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If we move away from this particular response, I'm indifferent on any process changes. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does move away from this particular response mean, exactly? E Eng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, it was in response to Valereee's ... leave aside the quality of this particular response—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it. E Eng 01:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request – Yes, though I'd put it a bit more strongly: Even a mediocre response from a regular is likely to be at least as good as any response make by someone unfamiliar with the article. I've bolded part of your post because it's pretty much what we want, though I'd add that even better than the patroller recognizing they should move on would be for the system to never take the patroller to the page at all. E Eng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a training issue. Having the edit request just not show up at the various lists for 24 hours would likely fix the problem without instruction creep and retraining of every new patroller. There's just really very little reason for an edit request to be funneled to a random patroller before 24 hours have gone by. Any page that has an urgent change needed is likely to have multiple editors headed there or working there already. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just said, with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. E Eng 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, sorry, by 'training issue' I just meant that trying to get patrollers to recognize when their help isn't needed means 1. adding to the instructions and 2. getting each new patroller to actually read and internalize the instructions.

If instead requested edits simply don't show up at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and wherever else they transclude to for say 24 hours, we don't have that same issue. We don't have to train patrollers. —valereee (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. That's what you said and that's what I agreed was the best thing to happen. We are in violent agreement. E Eng 12:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you must be reading something I said backwards, but no matter. So... shall we summarize the possible changes to the process we're contemplating, and then where do we raise this? E Eng 17:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be not unheard of, and yes. I think we could raise it at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). My best guess would be Village pump policy; only 39 watchers visited last edits at the talk page for edit requests.

drafting proposal

Something like:

Patrollers of requested edits at semiprotected articles sometimes are the first to visit a request at even heavily-edited talk pages. Often some familiarity with the article and recent talk page discussion would allow for more helpful response, and on pages that are currently being heavily edited, there are usually many editors available to help. We’re suggesting that edit requests on talk pages that are currently being heavily edited simply not show up at at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable for 24 hours, or that they're greyed out for the first 24 hours to indicate they aren't in urgent need of help from patrollers, to give regulars at high-traffic articles a chance to respond. This will lessen the burden on patrollers at edit requests and increase the likelihood new editors’ requests will be answered by someone familiar with ongoing discussions at that article.

That's terrible, but as a draft. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng,I've given it a copyedit. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Will be distracted for the next week or so but don't let me forget to get back to this. E Eng 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I still have this in my ping list. Right now I'm busy grinding someone into a grease spot. E Eng 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng, same —valereee (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're grinding someone into a grease spot as well? That's a side of you I haven't seen before. E Eng 01:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not my choice; they're pretty much forcing me to. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng is this still on the radar? —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny, I was just looking guiltily at it last night. The answer is yes, but I'm still just too distracted to concentrate on it. Don't worry, I never forget a commitment. E Eng 00:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Not that I remember, anyway.

Zero worries, there's no urgency. —valereee (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Still on my mind. E Eng 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The elephant never forgets. E Eng 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I really wish I'd followed up on this before now. Every day at T:Joe Biden we've got people swooping in out of nowhere saying the same stupid thing over and over: Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, like they've helped by saying that. I'm so sick of people doing mindless things that help not at all and waste others' time. E Eng 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Silver lining: we now have another really good example of why it makes sense to propose something like this. —valereee (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

I have another thought on how to go about this, but first I need to understand something. Where do these protected edit requests come from? What I mean is, how do IP editors stumble into the place where they're told "You can't edit this article, but if you fill in this box that will make a post to the talk page, with this little template attached"? I had imagine that it pops up when they try to edit the article, but I logged out just now and I realize that, in fact, when an IP tries to edit a protected article, there is simply no edit button for them to click. So where, exactly, do these templated posts come from?

The reason I ask is that, it seems to me, the way to fix our problem is just to make is so the edit-request template is omitted from the post. In other words, we don't need options for how the request will be handled, what we need an option to make the post just a simple post, without the request template. E Eng 19:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I think these must be people who are used to being able to edit, or people sophisticated enough to realize viewing source might let you edit. If you log out and click view source, you get an edit request button. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. OK, so we need to investigate how that template pops up, and what mechanism can be inserted to modify that on an article-by-article basis, perhaps based on some magic word or template inserted on the article's talk page. E Eng 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So, I've already poured myself a glass of wine. Don't judge. But why is that better than having edit requests for articles (that have 400+ watchers who visited recent edits/have 50 edits per day) or edit requests less than 24 hours old simply not show up at the edit requests dashboard? That's probably where most of these eager beavers are coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I saw "investigate how that template pops up". I'm thinking you may be referring to the set of templates that is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (shown when clicking "view source"). The one shown in the header after you click "submit an edit request" and are redirected to the talk page is Template:Edit extended-protected/editintro. The template popping up in the post itself is the preload: Template:Submit_an_edit_request/preload. Mobile editors can't see any of this, though, and when they click the pencil they just see "This page is protected to prevent vandalism", so how on earth they're submitting requests I don't know...

Regarding the "no consensus" replies, probably just a habit of using the userscript and giving the generic responses I think. I've been guilty of it too, but now that you mention it, I suppose it is a pretty unhelpful thing to reply with. Also worth noting Module:Protected edit request shows the banner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

PR, butt in any time. :) —valereee (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, found this one today: Special:Permalink/1006579385#Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021. The request was answered in seven minutes with canned "unclear what you're asking" response to someone's first edit. —valereee (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, in my little ding-a-ling bell notification thingamajig at the top of every page, every day I skip over an open item I leave there reminding me to get back to this. Do not lose hope. E Eng 18:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Sorry to ping unnecessarily! —valereee (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still on my to-do list. E Eng 03:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thinking of this problem again after recent events. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, sorry, not enough coffee yet...recent events? —valereee (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

lol nevermind, REALLY not enough coffee! haha —valereee (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

examples

25 May 2021 —valereee (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Julie Hayden (teacher)

Hello! Your submission of Julie Hayden (teacher) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Question About Removing Information

Hey Valereee, as you probably remember (From my horrible edits months ago), I am under a Post-1992 US Politics T-Ban. I took a long break from editing and before I fully came back, I read up on dozens of policies. On my user page, I have two sections (User:Elijahandskip#Outside Wikipedia Recognition & part of User:Elijahandskip#About how I edit) which is about stupid stuff related to my T-Ban. I would like to remove that information from my user page, but as I discovered back in April, messing with any of that information without admin approval results in breaking my t-ban,([1]). I want to start fresh and get away from my mistakes months ago. Heck, I stopped editing between June 20, and today (August 24). So, would you let me remove that information from my user page? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip, why don't you email me with exactly what you want to do, and maybe I can just do it for you to make sure no one objects? That way you don't have to worry about the t-ban, you can say anything you want to me in email. :) —valereee (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208

Online events:

New: Women writers & their works
Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest
Continuing: Women's leadership & empowerment | Olympic & Paralympic Games
Women's rights | #1day1woman

See also:

Interwiki Women Collaboration

Other ways to participate:

Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Learn more about our proposed one-day online recruitment initiative in October.
Help plan and coordinate future events.
Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Follow Women in Red on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Protecting pages

Hi, I reported Aslanstatistic123 for disruptive editing (has been warned many times since 2015) and I'm waiting for an admin reponse. In the meantime, I believe that the best move is to just mass protect dozens of Kurdish-related pages. I want to ask if there would be support for such a move from an admin (we also have the sanctions put on Kurdish subjects) --Semsûrî (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Semsûrî, we don't usually protect proactively, even in highly contentious areas like Kurds/Kurdistan, but there are WP:Discretionary Sanctions in place for the area per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan, which means uninvolved admins can act quickly. I've p-blocked them from that page for edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but now they've gone on to disrupt other pages including removing categories that are relevant to the articles. --Semsûrî (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. They've never edited a talk, including their own. I've p-blocked from article space, maybe we can get their attention. Next time you see something problematic like this, do drop a DS alert on the person's page so admins can act quickly. I've done so now. —valereee (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for nominating me as editor of the week. It was a very pleasant surprise when I got on my computer after getting up here in Melbourne. --Bduke (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You're so very welcome, @Bduke! —valereee (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban

In the media: Vive la différence!

Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year

Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs

News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia

Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage

WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview

Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan

Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2021)

Mona Sahlin is a Swedish politician who was leader of the opposition and leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party from 2007 to 2011. Pictured is Sahlin in 2010.

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Mona Sahlin

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Grocery store • Crème brûlée

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

DYK for Julie Hayden (teacher)

On 31 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julie Hayden (teacher), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that seventeen-year-old Julie Hayden (pictured) was killed by members of the White Man's League days after starting a position teaching Black children, and became "the poster child of southern violence"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Hayden (teacher). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Julie Hayden (teacher)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede 66 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Request unblock

I request for unblock. Check my talk page to known. Thanks you. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | This is not !vote 02:51, 1 September 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 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. 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)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Help with move of edit notice

Hello, Valereee

Could I persuade you to help with moving an edit notice? I apparently need to be one of administrators, template editors, or page movers, and I'm not any of those.

I (successfully) moved List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan to List of county-designated highways in Michigan, per MOS:TITLECAPS, including its talk page. I also renamed the talk Archive 1 page and adjusted the target in the talk page itself. But the initial move presented me with a notice that "This page has an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan. Please move it to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of county-designated highways in Michigan."

That's where I'm stuck. Can you help, please? TIA,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney, I do not think I should be messing about with editing templates. I can just about manage to learn how to correctly insert one, given very clear instructions or a patient tutor. —valereee (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I try another admin. Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2021)

The past is the set of all events that occurred before a given point in time. Pictured is the oil on canvas painting Everything is in the past, painted by Vassily Maximov in 1889.

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Past

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Mona Sahlin • Grocery store

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

This Month in GLAM: August 2021

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue VIII, August 2021
Headlines
Albania report: Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP) Campaign in Albania and Kosovo Australia report: How Australian libraries are turning to Wikipedia during the global pandemic Brazil report: Transbordados: WikidataCon's preconference for Latin America discusses GLAM and decolonization Côte d'Ivoire report: Glam-wiki 2021 10 Juillet en Côte d'Ivoire France report: Wikimedian in residence; Some projects for this autumn India report: Second proofread competition starts on Bengali Wikisource in collaboration with the British Library Italy report: Summer school in July and two new WiR in August Netherlands report: 50 cool new things you can now do with KB’s collection highlights, and New old photographs of Algeria, Mali and Morocco by Angeline van Achterberg New Zealand report: A Wikimedian at New Zealand Opera Serbia report: Villas and castles of Serbia Sweden report: History, history and future UK report: Khalili Collections reaches 30 articles USA report: Wiki salons and Kearny Mesa Special story: Hack4OpenGLAM is ready to start Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: OpenRefine starts SDC development WMF GLAM report: GLAM conversations and feedbacks for a better Wikimedia movement Calendar: September's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Now watching, with subtitles...

Season 2 of a Belgian Netflix series called Into the Night. Basic premise: something-something happens to the Sun's polarity resulting in the bombardment of all living things during the day by neutronic radiation — like a neutron bomb's radiation, with a half-life of only fifteen minutes, but is "roughly ten times more effective at causing biological damage compared to gamma or beta radiation of equivalent energy exposure" (Neutron_radiation#Health_hazards_and_protection says). In other words: night is safe, day is death.

So, basically, this airliner is forced to be stay at night at all times, all while landing safely to affect repairs, get fuel, get food (which like all other organic matter gets damaged by the radiation), and manage other crises. And they always have just a couple of hours before they need to escape the sunrise trailing them. Quite reminiscent of the masterpiece episode 33 (Battlestar Galactica), if you're familiar, except for an entire 6 episode season (and now just started season 2). And there's a great subpack, so I even get Hebrew (again)! El_C 16:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I loved Battlestar Galactica! I am definitely up for this one. I have been binging from List of apocalyptic films recently. I also completely binged Motherland:Fort Salem, which I liked (and was happy to see it's been renewed for a final season so they can wrap up the story), but that one sounds even more up my alley. —valereee (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I too have gone through List of apocalyptic films (among several other similar lists) a couple of months ago. A lot of great trashy apocalyptic films that I'm just a sucker for. And about six months ago, I also did all of 2004 Galactica (second viewing only — took me a while to songspam the track of that series, I'm embarrassed to say

). Glad you liked Motherland, it has a flair that really is its own thing, I found. El_C 17:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C, zipped through Into the Night in a couple days, thanks for the recommendation! I also watched Edge of Tomorrow yesterday, it's in the 'repeat each day until you get it right' category. Could have been shorter, but not bad. —valereee (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice, glad you liked WP:ITN! Agreed, EOT could have been trimmed, but I liked it, certainly more than anything else that director has made. And I didn't dislike Cruise in it. And I'm a big Emily Blunt fan, in general — her best movie, in my opinion, is Sicario (2015 film). Strong recommend there. El_C 17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not a huge fan of Tom Cruise, and I almost didn't bother because of him. (And really, we're just all accepting a 60-yo man in an officer's uni as a deserter? I get it's all hands on deck, but really? But sure, go ahead, drop and give me fifty.) —valereee (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind some kibitzing.... Motherland is good, but by far the best recent show on Freeform is Cruel Summer.

I had – shockingly – not seen Battlestar Galactica before, so binging that was a priority during pandemic lockdown. (See my announcement.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

All kibitzers welcome. I'll check out Cruel Summer, thanks! —valereee (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2021)

The history of art focuses on objects made by humans in visual form for aesthetic purposes. Pictured ia a dun horse from the Lascaux cave paintings.

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

History of art

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Past • Mona Sahlin

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Valereee,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2021)

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Student exchange program

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: History of art • Past

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Request to block User:J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I) from talkspace

Hi Valereee! You blocked User:J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I) from namespace, noting that they may need to be blocked from talkspace too if they are being disruptive there. Well, they have now made disruptive talkspace edits. ––FormalDude talk 09:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive when? I just want to request a good-faith edit. If you do not agree then you may simply decline it. Plus the who restore my comment is not me anyway (you may check the page history to known). 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Please comment on content, not on me 12:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Here. ––FormalDude talk 13:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do that to redirect the talkspace of moved page to talkspace of corresponding page. Usually the talk page of moved page should redirect to corresponding page, for example: If a page A moved to B then Talk:A is also need to be moved to Talk:B. And Talk:A therefore will redirect to Talk:B. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Please comment on content, not on me 13:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

Library design improvements deployed
New collections available in English and German
Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans

In the media: The future of Wikipedia

Opinion: Wikimedians of Mainland China were warned

Op-Ed: I've been desysopped

Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages

Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators

Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings

Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?

Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11

News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund

WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2021)

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

No such thing as a stupid question

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Student exchange program • History of art

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (television) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211

Online events:

New: Women in STEM
New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest
Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman

Special event:

12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon

See also:

Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon

Other ways to participate:

Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help plan and coordinate future events.
Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Follow Women in Red on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

20-minute article assessment volunteers

Hi Valereee -- I'm just checking in with volunteers for the WiG Good Article Editathon... but I see you currently have no internet access! If you're able to resolve internet connectivity issues and are still interested in helping out with our 20-minute article assessments, you're welcome to jump in at any point during October. Basic plan: as requests come in, volunteers will mark the request as "in progress," leave their comments on the talk page of the article, then mark the request as "done". We'll be aiming to identify any major issues in articles and suggest priorities for the editor to work on. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2021)

A geographer is a physical scientist, social scientist or humanist whose area of study is geography, the study of Earth's natural environment and human society, including how society and nature interacts. Pictured is The Geographer (1668-69), by Johannes Vermeer.

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Geographer

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: No such thing as a stupid question • Student exchange program

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions