Jump to content

User talk:RL0919: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: MassMessage delivery
No edit summary
Line 470: Line 470:
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous'''
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous'''
:* In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) [[:meta:Special:Diff/18886804|changed its office actions policy]] to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop {{noping|Fram}}. This action has resulted in [[WP:FRAM|significant community discussion]], a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WJBscribe|request for arbitration]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/904388429#WJBscribe|permalink]]), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an [[Special:PermanentLink/904148460#Open letter to the WMF Board|open letter to the WMF Board]].
:* In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) [[:meta:Special:Diff/18886804|changed its office actions policy]] to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop {{noping|Fram}}. This action has resulted in [[WP:FRAM|significant community discussion]], a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WJBscribe|request for arbitration]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/904388429#WJBscribe|permalink]]), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an [[Special:PermanentLink/904148460#Open letter to the WMF Board|open letter to the WMF Board]].

== Thanks re [[Ayn Rand]] ==

Thanks for your friendly and helpful approach to my formatting screwup. I've tried to leave the thing less of a mess. Hope it worked! [[User:Socsciedits|Socsciedits]] ([[User talk:Socsciedits|talk]]) 00:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


----
----

Revision as of 00:36, 3 July 2019

WP:REFUND request

Hello RL0: please restore all the Portal subpages you deleted via WP:CSD G6. Since there are now assessments as to whether the single-page or multi-page versions are better for the encyclopedia, the only way these assessments can proceed is if the subpages are restored. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a few pages and I'm pretty busy elsewhere in the first part of this week, so it may take a couple of days. Can you point me to where this assessment of single-page vs. multi-page portals is taking place? --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the discussions are taking place here and here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking on the status of this; we have portals with redlinks to pages that need WP:REFUNDing; is there anything further you need from me to complete my request? Thanks in advance! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704
Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562
Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
  7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
  8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
  9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
  10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
  11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
  12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
  13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
  14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
  15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
  16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
  17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
  18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
  19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
  20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
  21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
  22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
  23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on.    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

  • Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
  • The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
  • They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

  • Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
  • The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
  • Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   01:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Decent Rogues" - request for page deletion to be reversed.

Good evening,

The page entitled 'The Decent Rogues' has recently been deleted for reasons I fully understand looking through some of the protocols. However, I was just writing on the off-chance to see if it could be reinstated, for now at least. Typically, and the irony of the timing hasn't escaped my attention, it's just been picked-up for its first professional London performance. Obviously anything to help maintain its awareness in the public eye would be splendid, of which Wikipedia is a fine example (and especially since new British music theatre is such a rare and difficult thing to protect!)

I'll leave it entirely to your discretion but it you're okay with that, I'll buy you a pint at its West End opening night!

Regards and thanks,

Jo sabine (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who proposed deleting the article, but the deletion was carried out by User:Explicit, so it would be more appropriate for them to respond to your request. If they don't respond to my mention, you can ask at their user talk page. Since the deletion was done under the simple proposed deletion process, it shouldn't be a problem to restore the page. However, I would encourage you to add mention of any third-party news coverage about the London production as soon as possible. If there are not new third-party sources, then the next step would be an Articles for Deletion discussion, and that kind of deletion would be harder to come back from. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful reply. I’ll wait to hear from User:Explicit and we’ll go from there.

Very best wishes. Jo sabine (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitration on list of political philosophers

Hi RL0919, thank you for your contributions to the List of political philosophers talk page. I think we may be in need of arbitration. I don't know the protocols for doing that, however. Would you be able to step in as a third party? I added authors to the page with references meeting the criteria that you proposed as modified by Snowded. You asked for one source connecting the author in question with political philosophy. For instance, you stated: "Fortunately, your latest effort should help progress things. For example, the existence of a book like Barrett's Persons and Liberal Democracy seems like a pretty good indication that John Paul II could be included here. I can't speak for everyone who watches this list, but my suggestion would be to pick one solid source for each entry and include that as a reference." Snowded followed up by saying everyone should have two sources. Fair enough. I took this to be a consensus criteria since the active contributors all said their bit without any objections.

I proceeded to add authors providing more than the required number of citations. Now, Snowded has deleted the added authors as well as the reference section, stating he doesn't want references on the main page, but only in the talk page. He has also continued to not provide any alternative criteria for inclusion despite me asking for one multiple times. Polsky215 (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of deleted article / New draft

Dear RL0919, following the feedback and advice on my first article, I have finalized a completely revised draft for Rice Powell in my sandbox. You can find it here for review. As you will see, I have added new reliable sources to establish better notability and meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Your feedback is much appreciated! Thank you. --Stefanie at FMC CorpCom (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a previously deleted Draft

Hi RL0919, I'm currently looking to create a draft for Catz 'n Dogz (I have been working on the article in my Sandbox). As a previous version of this Draft was deleted by yourself, I wanted to check with you why this draft was deleted and whether there is a reason for me not to publish it ? I have checked WP:NMUSIC and believe that the artists are notable as they have released on an important indie label and have been placed in rotation on a national radio station, but please advise if you believe otherwise. Here is the page for the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Catz 'n Dogz. (For full disclosure, I have a COI with this act, therefore I will be disclosing this in the talk page and submitting the draft to Articles for Creation rather than publishing it directly) Littletishtash (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Littletishtash: I deleted the pages as the outcome of the discussion, so personally I don't have a particular opinion about a new draft on this specific subject. So I'll just give some general advice: The key is to provide two or more independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. So for example, "independent" means not the artist's own site or a reprint of a press release, "reliable" means not individual's blogs or sites that publish submissions by random people with no significant editorial review, and "significant coverage" means not just the artist's name on a bullet list or a note saying a track was released. (Music articles tend to have a lot of those "not" sources.) The non-independent and non-significant sources could still be used to verify specific details, but without the independent significant coverage, most likely the draft won't go anywhere and could end up in another deletion discussion. All the sources should meet the reliability criteria, especially for an article about living people. None of that is specific to your draft, but I hope it is at least a little helpful. (As an aside, I don't usually change other editor's comments, but I changed the link to the deletion discussion so I won't have a footnote floating at the bottom of my talk page. Hope you don't mind.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delreview

So atypical request, but I keep thinking about this. On the first of March, you deleted per this MFD. I was a bright young wikipedian and couldn't articulate my points well, but I knew something wasn't right with that MFD. None of the delete arguments were founded in policy. Someone cited WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTFORUM, like huh? We have too many Wikiprojecte already -- Is that really a good reason? The nom cited a 3 year old MFD discussion where half the participants (who are also both now blocked btw) voted to keep and no deletion rationale was even provided. I don't see why that was a reason to delete either.

So I have to ask... why did you close the MFD as delete? What was your own rationale if you can remember?

This seriously has bothered me for months. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The core argument for deletion was that this WikiProject was never really active, and therefore there is no purpose to the pages continuing to exist. Since WikiProjects are functional entities for coordinating editors, not part of the encyclopedic content, this is a legitimate argument for deletion and one that five of the seven participants agreed with. One editor mentioned NOTWEBHOST and NOTFORUM to counter your alternative suggestion that the pages be userfied, not as their primary reason for supporting deletion. The only other non-deletion argument was SmokeyJoe's suggestion to "archive" (which is essentially a "keep" since there is no archiving function), but he undercut the credibility of his position by pinging all the former project members with zero response. So seeing a clear majority with an acceptable argument and no compelling counters, I closed with the majority. --RL0919 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem with my arguments for keep was that I was so new and inexperienced I couldn't properly articulate. Were I able to argue for the restoration of these pages, I would have said that the Assyrian-Syriac conflict/debate has since died down from the time the cooperation board has been created. Tagging it with {{Historical}} should have been the first option rather rushing to delete. This way future editors could get a better sense of what the disagreement was about and help guide future decisions (like this proposed page move). Having the pieces for how we got here is important for knowing where we need to go and why. That's the gist of it at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a typical argument for why these types of pages should be kept. Looking at the histories of the deleted pages, you could probably make a decent argument on those lines for restoring Wikipedia talk:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board. It's the only one of the deleted pages that has a substantial contribution history. --RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case without the principle page, the talk page is liable to be deleted per WP:G8. Either way, as closing admin would you consider restoring? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think unilateral restoration would be appropriate. You are making a different argument now than you did then, but I don't know what the responses would be from others; they could have new counterarguments as well. So the appropriate thing is to let others weigh in at a WP:Deletion review discussion. If just the talk page is restored, there are ways the G8 problem could be dealt with (for example, recreate the associated page as a note explaining what was done), so I don't believe that should be a significant barrier. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thank you for your advice! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Thanks re Ayn Rand

Thanks for your friendly and helpful approach to my formatting screwup. I've tried to leave the thing less of a mess. Hope it worked! Socsciedits (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RL0919&oldid=904561433"