User talk:Srich32977

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33

"Dead" links

Please don't remove "dead" links as they can be recovered from archival sources. See [1] for an example. General Ization ^Talk 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Spacing within the infobox disease template

Can you please not alter the spacing in this template as you did here?[2]

Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

Call of the Wild

Precious six years

... for improving article quality in January 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Srich32977, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography Inclusions

Hi Srich32977, I am roseoilpicnic, and I just revised the wikipedia article for The Heartland Institute. I spent quite a lot of time creating an up-to-date Bibliography and had posted it. Within a space of ten minutes, a message from your handle had removed the list. Your note mentions a lack of relevance and something about salad. I do not understand. Please explain. Roseoilpicnic (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)roseoilpicnic 2/16/2018

Follow-on note, Perhaps you ran across the unusual, but actual, title of "Don't Poop in my Salad". That book has been listed under the "Books" category of the article for quite some time. Please do reinstate the Bibliography. The citations are in order. Roseoilpicnic (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)roseoilpicnic2/16/2018

@Roseoilpicnic: It wasn't me, but I agree with the removal. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Use of templates within citation templates

In this edit where {{snd}} was added to the |title= of a {{cite web}} - this is disallowed as it breaks things. See the top of the {{snd}} where it says "STOP! Don't add this to citation templates" (-: In general, it's not a good idea to add templates within a citation template. -- GreenC 15:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: Thanks. I didn't know. Happy to learn something new! – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

endash/emdash at Stoneman Douglas

Re: [3][4][5]

Hello. First, I appreciate not having "discussions" via re-reverts and edit summaries.
Your rationale is not entirely clear to me, although I get that you don't like unspaced emdash. There is no basis in my experience for a statement that spaced endash is "used elsewhere - consistently", if that's what you meant. While it's currently true that "no other unspaced eMdashs are in the article", it's also true that there were no spaced endashes in the article's prose. MOS says you can use either provided you use it consistently within the article, and it's not talking about things like date and time ranges, which always use spaced endash. To my mind, all this means that the one use of unspaced emdash should be left alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: per MOS:DASH "In all these cases [e.g. sentence punctuation], use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article:" – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC) The article now has 2 emdashes (improperly spaced) and several other properly spaced endashes. Not consistent, and not in keeping with the MOS. 18:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

RfA

Would you be interested in a RfA nom? You seem to be a great candidate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Srich32977. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Thanks for the invite. I've toyed with the idea before and other fine editors have encouraged me as well. At this stage, though, I'll defer. The RfA can be a bothersome process. At the moment I do not want the aggravation. I'll let you know when I'm ready. Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review

I'm thinking of nominating USS North Carolina (BB-55) for GA review. Do you think it would pass? L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: I will take a look. – S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: You'll sea I did a few edits and added hints. Basically the prose needs improvement IOT convey more helpful info to the reader. For example, she got hit by a torpedo, but did the armor save her? Was the hull penetrated? What repairs did the crew do? Similarly, the prose for post-WWII needs improvement. Does "holes" actually mean empty compartments? What has happened, verses what's going to happen with her as a museum ship? Can the single sentence paragraphs be combined? I'll put the article on my watchlist. And feel free to ping me. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I work on it for a while. Could you also take a look at HNoMS Kjell? On another note, this is the third time I don't get notified by pings, so I'll have to check my preferences. Thankfully I watched your talk page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

2nd amendment edit

Hello SRich32977,

I am new to adding an edit to Wikipedia so I ask your indulgence please. The recent edit that I had entered was reverted from the official site related to the 2nd Amendment as it relates to a recent ruling in 2017.

The wiki page does does not show any recent update related to the topic of consideration as it relates specifically to post DC v Heller and the Fourth Circuit Court (2017) decision. The updated edit submitted indicated a settled and decided case from 2017 Fourth Circuit court. The following link is a reference to a viable and credibly recognized source.

This is not the only source of reference for this legal decision in reference to this case. If the original Court link for the decision is needed, that would be helpful to know.

My question is in the interest of accuracy and reference to currently sourced information. Is this not one of the primary tenants of Wikipedia? Perhaps I have mistakenly misunderstood the purpose of this site.

The reason I am asking is that I received a response back to the edit I had submitted. The response referenced to visit your talk page as a part of a reverted edit. Your response referenced that the edit was specifically "NOT CONSTRUCTIVE".

If the the edit submitted is deemed not constructive yet is a matter of documented court record (ie. not opinion) as it relates to established law from more than 1 year ago (ie. 2017), I would be quite interested in knowing all fairness how exactly this would not be considered constructive in addition to being considered relevant to the topic it was entered for as it relates to a final court decision NOT LISTED in the post Heller section.

If there is a specific style of edit needed, I would appreciate again in the interest of accuracy and currency of the topic, assistance in getting the proper style of edit submitted.

Your gracious and considerate response would be appreciated. I look forward to your reply. Thank You.

Sincerely, Rch000 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Rch000

New article review

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix