Jump to content

User talk:Nick Moyes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pworren (talk | contribs) at 10:15, 2 June 2020 (Tea House Invitation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Your message to Waggie

Hi Nick,
I saw your message to Waggie here and I would like to let you know that I had a similar experience on IRC, but with Praxidicae, who is also an administrator on IRC. I used to get help with Wikipedia on IRC, but I didn't like the attitude she gave to me on the channel. That's part of the reason why I stopped using IRC to get help, but I still use IRC to ask for revdel stuff. I wanted to share my feelings with you about this so that's why I messaged you about this. Interstellarity (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I was quite stunned to find myself banned from IRC just for looking, as you'll have seen. I'm sorry if you have been dealt with in such a curt manner there, too. It makes me wonder how common that attitude is there. I only visited this morning as it's an area of Wikipedia I currently have virtually no experience of whatsoever, and the revdel issue discussed at the Teahouse yesterday prompted me to think I ought to start learning more about it -especially before I join the admin IRC group. Gosh - I hate to think what it would be like if we treated newcomers like that at the Teahouse. (Perhaps we do, and we don't realise it? There's a thought for us.)
That said, I found it an extremely valuable experience to be at the receiving end of a ban by another editor for no good reason - at least as I saw it. It was a real "bloody hell!" moment. It makes one appreciate the upset and sense of injustice all new and well-meaning editors must feel when we come along and they either get templated or blocked for (as they would see it) no good reason at all, and simply for not understanding our hidden rules. It also makes me appreciate the importance of good, clear and succinct 'how to' instructions when offering services to inexperienced users. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have responded on my talk page with a detailed explanation of my actions and the circumstances surrounding them. Waggie (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes get frustrated when experienced good-faith editors have a bad attitude on IRC. I have never got banned from IRC, but it makes me not want to join the channel to get help with Wikipedia. I makes me feel more upset when I don't tell someone about it. When I talk about it with friendly editors like yourself or Oshwah, it eases my stress and can make me feel better. Interstellarity (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity - I'm extremely happy to hear you say that coming to me for help results in having your stress eased and that it makes you feel better. I'm sure that I can speak for Nick Moyes when I say that he feels the exact same way. :-) Our doors are always open, and you're welcome to come to any one of us any time you need. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing summary page

Hi Nick, I just found your summary on how to add references to Wikipedia. Do you mind if I add it to my resource list on our Cochrane-Wikipedia project page? You did a nice job on it! Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, JenOttawa. Of course I don't mind! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for helping me on my talk page! I didn't even realize you had done that until I looked at my talk page contriblog! Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! (Note: respond on minha talk page 22:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-11

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a new search word called articletopic. You can use it to search for articles on a specific topic. It is available on the Arabic, Czech, English and Vietnamese Wikipedias. It will come to more Wikipedias soon. [1][2][3]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 March. It will be on all wikis from 12 March (calendar).

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Thegooduser/Interview

when you have time, please answer the questions there, thanks! -- Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 edits

I just reached 10,000 edits. Not sure whether I should be happy or ashamed of myself!! Interstellarity (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Interstellarity, did you get a notif? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: Yes I did. Interstellarity (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping Bananas I never got a edit notification! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember - I think I got one. But then nothing after that, which was a disappointment. We have a really daft, exponential scale of sending congratulatory notifications. Personally, I think they should be at each 10k milestone. Then a big cuddle from Jimbo at 100k edits! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1 million will be the very last notification --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard/Workshop/Issues/Feburary/March 2020

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the Feb/March 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard.

We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 20:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Advanced item There is a new API module for changing the content model of existing pages. Use action=changecontentmodel to specify the new model. You can read the documentation on mediawiki.org. [5]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 March. It will be on all wikis from 19 March (calendar).

Future changes

  • If you edit a page at the same time as someone else you can get an edit conflict. There is a new two-column interface to make it easier to solve this. It will soon be active by default on the German, Arabic, and Farsi Wikipedias. It will be on by default on more wikis within the next months. You will be able to opt out of the new interface. [6][7]
  • You can see a proposed design for replying to comments in an easier way.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeking adoption

Hello, I am focused on upping my involvement and skill level with Wikipedia this year, and think it might go faster with an adopter. (Or adoption program -- not sure what these are?) I am an academic librarian, and teach with wikipedia sometimes (use it in information literacy instruction.) So, I'm interested in making better content for topics I care about, but also in Wikipedia as a unique information beast. I've recently begun to get involved in the [Women in Religion project], and would love some support to more quickly become useful to the project. (I noticed you have an interest in Women in Red.) I feel much more confused about the whole apparatus of Wikipedia than the basics of researching, writing, citing, etc. Besides the interests mentioned on my userpage, I do love science and natural history (and birding!), but have not yet done any editing in those areas. Thanks for your consideration or recommendations. NuthatchYogi (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that link didn't work out. "1000 Women in Religion" is a WikiProject.NuthatchYogi (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NuthatchYogi Thanks for your message. Yes, I would be willing to help you, especially because of your stated background and interests, though generally I do already prefer slightly to see users having already made slightly do more edits across Wikipedia, though I do see you've been editing on and off for a few years, and started off at an editathon, which is fantastic. Right now, in real life, and for the next few weeks, I am extraordinarily busy, and so I'm only able to get a few moments here and there to edit. So my suggestion is that you continue editing, ask for help for individual simple questions at the Teahouse, and perhaps collate some broader questions or concerns that you have and leave them for me here in bulleted form, and I will attempt to address them piecemeal for you. My adoption approach is not a structured one (i.e. I don't focus on anti-vandalism if that's not what you're interested in) but it's more one that supports editors in their chosen area of interest, as long as there is some overlap with my own. If you've seen my adoption page, you'll see that I'm keen to support any female editor, or writer on women's articles, or someone interested in the sciences. (You might like to look at [[8]] to see how I engaged with a young female editor recently who has gone on to do some great things here.
Although seemingly a great 'beast', I think that Wikipedia is actually extraordinarily elegant, and that there are solutions or guidelines for most situations. The challenge is often to find the right written help pages. A good trick when searching for help is to think of which keyword sums up your problem, then type that word into the normal Search box, preceded by WP: Thus, if stuck on copyright or referencing issues, type WP:Copyright or WP:References, and choose the most likely-sounding option from the drop down offer you see. Then note that each page often contains a top line to clarify what the page is about - or a link or links to point you to closely-sounding pages. And then that there is a 'See Also' section down at the bottom of most help pages that links to related topics. Knowing these two things, it's quite easy to eventually find the help you need for yourself. Some of these pages do take some reading (and interpretation), but that's the commitment you have to be prepared to give in order to contribute to the project. And I can help with the guidance and interpretation. Finally, it'd be great to see you finish off The Wikipedia Adventure - there are actually a total of 15 separate badges you can collect, and it's another great way to show you're willing to work though our guidance pages. How does that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nick Moyes. I didn't mean any slight to Wikipedia; I think most real beasts are complex and elegant, nothing negative intended. :) I will plan to use TeaHouse for any immediate and specific questions, pursue the help pages, and consider other questions I wish to pose. I have, by the way, completed TWA twice now, but for some reason most of the badges aren't sticking. I don't know if this is a fluke, or some user error I'm not aware of. NuthatchYogi (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NuthatchYogi. I'm not Nick, but I am a former adoptee of his. I just wanted to say that it's nice to meet you. Feel free to read the adoption page linked if you think any of the information there could be useful. Also, I found the Help:Directory really useful when I was trying to learn how to do different things, so it might be a useful resource to check out if you're trying to figure out how to do something on your own. Clovermoss (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Clovermoss!!!NuthatchYogi (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, I have some questions about strategy. Your comments welcome, if this is the sort of thing you like to help with.

  • What are some good ways I can identify pages that need development or improvement in my areas of interest?
  • Any suggestion on efficient use of time and info sources in adding content?
    • Mostly now I am: 1) identifying page or topic, 2) doing a lot of researching and gathering sources, then reading them, 3) drafting new content and citations, 4) making the edits. I have done with this T. Thorn Coyle and East Side Freedom Library, and am preparing to do this with Thandeka. I am spending a huge amount of time on steps 2 and 3, sometimes not resulting in long or major edits. Is this normal? Is this valuable?
    • Alternately, I've wondered if I should: 1) explore scholarship and news about topics of interest, 2)then figure out where in Wikipedia articles the info could plug in. Is this done by some editors? Is it considered useful?
  • Are there guidelines or best practices about creating/adding sections with headers in an article?

NuthatchYogi (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NuthatchYogi: Let me address your first question. (I'll have to think about the others later). One good way to find articles to improve that relate to your are of interest is to find a so-called 'WikiProject' which supports that article. Each of these projects usually has a table showing an assessment of quality and importance to that project. You could look for articles that are of the lowest quality (called Stubs, because they're so short) and perhaps of the highest importance to that project. You could visit each one, and see whether you're motivated to improve it.
So, how do you do this? OK, let's take a page you recently edited (María Romero Meneses). Go to its talk page Tab (Talk:María Romero Meneses) and look at the various 'WikiProjects' that are relevant to that article. Let's choose Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, and you'll see that it (and the other Projects) have indicated this is a C-quality article (see explanation), of Low importance to their project (see here). But most importantly, just click the blue Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints link to go to that project.
There you will see a rather complex and colourful Table in a section entitled Article Assessment. Though scary-looking these are brilliant ways to find pages to work on. The table has columns showing importance (Top, High, Mid, Low, Unassigned). Then there are rows on the left side to indicate Quality. Going down from the to (Featured Article) to the shortest (Stubs). I note there is one article identified as a 'High importance, short stub article, and 33 Medium quality stub articles. As these offer the most potential for improvement, click the hyperlinked number to see a list like this one of the 33 medium importance stubs. Either browse through the list of article titles lest one of them stands out as something you about already, or work down each link, starting at Adamo Abate.
It's a very short page, with just one EXTERNALLINK to what looks like a user-created webpage. Not a Reliable Source. So then a Google search on their name, inlcuding a specific check at Google Books, might yield more sources you can use to add content and a reference to your new source. Some pages have warning templates at the top to flag up issues that others have found, but not fixed. Fix those, and you do make a useful contribution. I note that Dasya and Martyrdom of the Holy Queen Shushanik have issues that could be usefully addressed.
Maybe having found that an unsatisfactory route to find pages of interest, go find one that does interest you - lets say - T. Thorn Coyle. Scroll to the very bottom of the article and you'll see a section called 'Categories' with hyperlinks to various categories assigned to that page. Click one of them, say "American neopagans" , and you'll arrive at Category:American neopagans which automatically populates itself with every other page which has had that category titles added to it. You could browse through these names for articles that appeal to you, and go visit and see what you can do there - from typofixing to adding citations to good sources.
Give that a try and let me know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nick Moyes. I will explore through some WikiProjects. I appreciate the walk-through on those project structures like the Article Assessment table; they are kind of scary! Do you think I need to be concerned about "messing up" work planned or tracked by a WikiProject, or is any reasonable edit a good edit, as far as those projects are concerned? NuthatchYogi (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC):::::::NuthatchYogi[reply]
@NuthatchYogi: Good question. But you needn't be scared of ruining anything. If you make a mistake, all articles are 'watched' by someone, and your edit will simply be reverted. If that happens, dont take offence, but if you really can't see why someone has undone your edit, it's normal practice here to go to their talk page and (politely) ask them. If you aren't sure if you've done the right thing, I'm here to offer a 2nd opinion, or you can ask at the Teahouse. The only time you need to be concerned is if you get escalating warnings after continuing to repeat the same type of edit. Best to stop and ask. (In due course I'll create a separate page here for our ongoing discussions). Nick Moyes (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NuthatchYogi: fixing faulty ping.Nick Moyes (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to a recent reversion of my good faith edit on the EM radiation page

The link that you talked about didn't exist in the languages section on my side. That's why I put the direct link in there. When I tried to put it in the wikidata, after I clicked publish an error message popped up. The Thai page was linked to a page called EM wave that redirected to EM radiation page and that's the reason why the Thai link is not visible on the lower left side. -Thas Tayapongsak (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Girl (short story)

Hi Nick, nice to meet your acquaintance (Teahouse bot linked you.) I found an unencyclopedic word choice in Murakami Haruki's Birthday Girl entry. The entry says so-and-so creates the story's "magic," which is clearly an enthusiast's opinion rather than a dry encyclopaedia's tone. However, the reference links to an old review of the story, one in which "magic" is the word chosen. So, better to change the word and delink? Or keep the fan-boy tone? Thank you. -CoronaEditor (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CoronaEditor: The link used seemed dead when I checked, and should go here. It looks like an amateur review, yet the editor who added it has breached our rules by copy/pasting or close paraphrasing that bit of the review. I should also delete the section as the source doesn't look to me like a hugely reliable one, and seems more like a fan-review as far as I can tell - not an analysis. You could contact the editor who added it an explain they must not copy/paste of close paraphrase other content. You are right, 'magic' is a non-neutral tone, and one that, had it been used by a recognised reviewer, might have been worth putting in quotation marks - but not here, I feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Tech News: 2020-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • Some development will be slower than planned. This is because of the current pandemic. You can see the new deployment guidelines. This is to avoid risks when some persons could be unavailable.
  • There was a problem when adding interwiki links. The tool you use to add interwiki links could suggest the wrong project to link to. This has now been fixed. [9][10]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 March. It will be on all wikis from 26 March (calendar).

Future changes

  • There is a project to make editing easier for newcomers. The developers are trying to understand what initiatives different Wikipedias have to welcome newcomers. They also want to know which templates are often used for maintenance activities. You can help this project by checking if your wiki's pages are listed on Wikidata.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
helping new users
... you were recipient
no. 2166 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help don't know what to do with this some one is making stuff up

Hello I saw you on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II&action=history It appears to be the same person as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castelnuovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montese seems to me like it. This person appears to be making up World War II hoaxes, as for one pages they made. The only source is to a food website. The first thing that comes up in Spanish is (Las 15 mejores comidas callejeras de Guatemala) The 15 best street foods in Guatemala? Does not seem like a reliable source for a World War II battle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_CastelnuovoDriverofknowledge (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It Appears the person needs help as they asked me on my page, so I'm going to try and help them the best I can.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Driverofknowledge, sorry I couldn't respond. Have been - and still will be - fairly busy for a while. But contact me again if you need help, or ask for assistance at The Teahouse, if you need it urgently. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do thanks!Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-14

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 April. It will be on all wikis from 2 April (calendar).

Future changes

  • The video player will change to be simpler and more modern. The current beta feature will become the video player for everyone. The old player will be removed. [12]
  • There is a project to make templates easier to use. The next few weeks the developers will present ideas on the project page. You can watch that page if you are interested in giving feedback. [13]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes thank you for helping me

Nick thank you for helping me to edit the New York Blood Center page. I am new and bumbling but have uploaded some of my photos to the commons - The Rosendale Trestle in snow. I posted the offered citations to the Teahouse because i don't want to damage the wiki. Best wishes from New York!

Apocalypticwarlord (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey!!! Thank you very much Nick Moyes☺ You have welcomed me to Wikipedia ...I'm glad to be a part of this. And I will take care of that what you made me understand . 

Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Merci pour avoir trouvé Aron Ralston! (Living in Lyon and formerly in Grenoble, I guess that's why it teased me. I've tried google with english syntax but I guess MSN spoil on my PC as far as it will do the same it for Le Bistro en français) Artehjbj (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • There was a problem with the Wikidata database last week. Some wikis went down for twenty minutes. Wikidata and other projects showed error messages. Interwiki links were not shown, some tools did not work and other problems. Some of this was fixed quickly. The developers are working on fixing the rest. [18][19][20]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 15. It will be on all wikis from April 16 (calendar).

Future changes

  • Some graphs have not worked on mobile. This will soon be fixed. [21]
  • The article tab on talk pages of redirects links to the target of the redirect. It could link to the redirect page itself instead. You can leave feedback on this.
  • For pages using syntax highlighting, the use of the deprecated <source> tag, as well as the use of the deprecated enclose parameter, will add tracking categories.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Screenshot showing what the Reply tool looks like
This early version of the Reply tool automatically signs and indents comments.

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

Reply tool improved with edit tool buttons
In a future update, the team plans to test a tool for easily linking to another user's name, a rich-text editing option, and other tools.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

  • On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
  • The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
    • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
    • a rich-text visual editing option, and
    • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quora

Hello Nick,
I hope you are doing well. Your responses on Wikipedia have been very insightful. Because of this, I feel you would be an ideal contributor to Quora. I understand Quora is not Wikipedia, it's a Q&A site about a wide range of topics, but the community is just as good there as it is on Wikipedia. There are some Quora questions that are related to Wikipedia that you might be interested in answering. Here is an example. Some contributors to Wikipedia including Jimmy Wales contribute there as well. Also, Thegooduser and I are writing messages regarding the pandemic we are facing for the next issue of TheWikiWizard. Stay tuned. :-) Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity, Next TWW will come out in 1-2 days, just taking care of some things! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 19:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Interstellarity, thank you for your kind words. I'm afraid Quora and other sites like that aren't really for me, and I'm already struggling to find all the time I need to contribute to Wikipedia right now. I do tend to see Google results that link to user-contributed opinion sites like that, but I rarely look at them unless its for really stuff like 'how to fix up a shelf' where I can decide which of multiple opinions are worth considering. But I appreciate you thinking of me. Glad you and {{|Thegooduser}} are collaborating on TWW. Looking forward to seeing the next issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK if you don't. I can imply that Quora is written by volunteers who can take as little or as much time needed to ask and answer questions just like Wikipedia. I know real life can get in the way sometimes, but we have to live with it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thank you so much for helping me with editing! Firestar9990 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard - April 2020

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the April 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard.

We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading & stay safe! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser and Interstellarity: - thank you!! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 4 May 2020.

Recent changes

  • Advanced item The small wiki toolkits is to help smaller wikis that need technical skills. They can learn and share technical skills. [22]
  • Advanced item Over-qualified CSS selectors in Wikimedia skins have been removed. div#content is now .mw-body. div.portal is now .portal. div#footer is now #footer. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them. [23]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

  • Some things on the wikis might look weird or not work in Internet Explorer 8 in the future. Internet Explorer 8 was replaced in 2011. [24]
  • The font in the diffs will change. [25]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 April next week. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 April next week. It will be on all wikis from 30 April next week (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Nick Moyes! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Link Twice, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redsox baseball

Hi Nick hope everything is going well I’m reaching out to see if you would be interested in writing a simple biography of a newly drafted Redsox player on Wikipedia? Boston4you (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a warning on your talk page not to approach any more editors in this manner. It is not an acceptable way of doing things. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time

To read through my contribution to National Immunisation Program Schedule

Pratat (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:National Pollinator Strategy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:National Pollinator Strategy, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template names in hidden text

Re: this edit, is there a reason that you change the hidden text in sandbox templates? It seems to cause more trouble than it fixes, since editors copying over a change from the sandbox often forget to fix the hidden text and it ends up in the non-sandbox version. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I encountered this version that you were developing and had deployed on various users' pages, I was unable to determine where it had come from because the hidden text gave a misleading pathway. So I corrected it. That seems reasonable. How is it being used nowadays? If it's not being directly substituted, can the sandbox subpage now be deleted if it's not getting used? I'm unclear why you say that numerous editors are copying over a change from the sandbox to the main version, anyway. Providing it isnt being directly deployed on user pages, its ok to remove the hudden text, but then the sandbox content must not look like an active, deployable template, which it does at the moment.  'Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts. Yeah, it was being deployed as a test while we were having the big VPR discussion on the new welcome template, but I don't think it's being deployed now. It's somewhat being used as a place to demonstrate edit requests, thus the issues with the hidden text being accidentally copied over when those requests are implemented. I'm also using it currently as somewhat of a record of what I believe the consensus version of the template should be, since the live version includes an edit that has not been discussed and that I don't think is an improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: I didn't see any past evidence of the hiddent text being wrongly copied over, but accept it's a future risk. So, if you do plan on keeping the page, but not deploying it, the solution seems to be to make it abundantly clear on that page that it's only there for testing/reference, and also that you remove the documentation link and anything else that makes it look 'functional'. Does that make sense? Cheers, and stay safe. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that! For future reference, I just discovered that {{Sandbox other}} exists, which allows for differentiation between a sandbox and non-sandbox version of a template, and might be useful for this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

Hi @Nick Moyes: I see the patient and thorough way you deal with questions on the Teahouse, so I wanted to reach out with a question of my own. I recently started using Twinkle to revert vandalism and welcome/warn new users. Can you take brief look at my efforts so far and let me know if I'm doing it right? Because of the large number of edits involved with reverting vandalism, I feel like if I am somehow doing it incorrectly, the negative consequences would be exaggerated, so I want to confirm that I'm doing it right.

Thanks so much, Hillelfrei• talk • 23:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hillelfrei. I will try and sample a few of your edits for you. The key thing when using Twinkle to revert possible vandalism and to leave templates messages is to imagine how you would feel if you got one ...especially if you believed you were editing reasonably. It may be hard for me to sample your edits and say 'yes', you're doing fine -or not. It is so important that you have confidence that your actions are justifiable, and to be fully willing to apologise profusely if/when you get it wrong. You will know that if you get a lot of 'bite back'. Remember that it's easy to 'tweak' a templated message or to leave a comment which further explains why you've made some revert or left some warning. Every one of us will make mistakes - that's inevitable - but being able to learn from our errors is the really important thing. (But please don't tell me wife I said that, as I feel a totally different set of rules applies in domestic situations! There, I am, of course, always right.) I will get back to you, either here, or on your own talk page. A bientot. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • this warning was excellent
  • With this warning] about three edits to Yui Mizuno, I felt you were too strict. For two, possibly three, bad faith edits, I'd have given a 2nd level 'Caution' warning.
  • For the ten edits made by an IP at Mamnun_Hasan_Emon which you reverted, I am genuinely unsure what they were about. Without a bit more effort on my part to check, I am unsure if they are subtle vandalism, or good faith edits. If the former, your response was quite right; if the latter, it was over the top. I suspect you were right to act as you did. If you get comeback or a revert - be ready to say 'sorry'.
  • With this warning I think it was more of a case of a silly person testing if they can fiddle with an article. So I'd simply have left them a 3rd level'test edit' warning - much less accusative than a vandalism warning.
From these few checks, I don't sense you are doing things too badly. try to imagine why an editor does what they do. Revert edits with a comment like 'reverting childish edit' can be more powerful than leaving a nasty, officious vandalism warning. Equally, many people try to make tiny tweaks to Wikipedia, just to see if they can actually edit it. So, WP:AGF, and leave Twinkle Templates relevant to 'edit testing' wherever you can.
Where you see three bad faith edits in a row, just leave a level 2 warning unless they're really appalling (racism/neonazi/foul-mouthed etc). That gives them a chance to amend their ways. Make sure Twinkle is adding usernames and pages you've warned about to your Watchlist, and think about going back there to check on recent edits or warnings. Your earlier warnings and other people's wanrings may add to a picture you can act upon by reporting to WP:AIV if the problems appear to be continuing.
I realise I've only looked at a tiny sample, so if you want to come back and highlight any particular warning and ask me what I think, I'm happy to do that. However, my impression is that you're doing fine. The fact that you went to the trouble to ask me to check, tells me you are a considerate editor. You have my confidence. In haste, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Got it, I'll keep this in mind. I can definitely see how silly or test edits warrant cautions rather than warnings, plus sufficient explanations. Thanks for your time. --Hillelfrei• talk • 00:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Quick question - if I notice someone's contribs with two vandalizing edits on separate articles, do I leave a level 1 and a level 2 notice at once? Or, since I only noticed all the vandalism at one time I just leave a level 1 so they have a chance to receive and read one level notice at a time? Hillelfrei talk 02:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hillelfrei. I'd leave a level 2 warning, leaving a note in Twinkle's optional comment box, saying:"This is your second damaging edit - please don't make any more." Nick Moyes (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

thanks for your advice regarding the need to use a Creative Commons license on the page/s I'm creating for Wikipedia's ‘List of South African women artists’. At present there IS a page on her on Wikipedia's ‘List of South African artists’. So that should answer any doubts as to her ‘notability’. But that page contains several distortions, and some incorrect ‘facts’. Rather than trying ‘to set the record straight’, I prefer to create a page on ‘List of South African women artists’. Mainly because I believe that more women than guys would have an interest in visiting such a page, (and visiting art galleries!); and buying prints or paintings. AND most of all, alerting female readers to the impending publication of her memoirs ‘A Brush with Life’, of which I have recently completed the editing and formatting. And to those who cite a potential ‘conflict of interest’ in my creating this fresh page, I can assure them that anyone reading my Introduction to these memoirs will soon realise that it is NO hagiography! Now, unlike you, I have no official document to prove that I was sole beneficiary of her Will (after making disbursements to her daughter). And I realise that it would be quite a hassle to prove, over a quarter century after her death, my entitlement. But it’s a risk I’m prepared to take… Dave Desmond DeSoto 383 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by, DeSoto 383. The only advice I can really give is to keep everything open. So, make sure your Wikipedia userpage clarifies who you are, and the relationship to someone you are trying to edit an article about and, on Wikimedia Commons, explicitly state your image rights ownership as the son of the artist. You could point to that book as evidence of the relationship, I guess. May I counsel against trying to add any personal life information based on any book you have produced, but to cite only independent published sources that have written abut her. Built in to Wikipedia is a general dislike of seeing family members/employees etc write about the people they know. We, all of us, tend to filter out the less positive, and want to enhance the positive about people we know or love, and that makes us not the best people to write about them in a neutral, encyclopaedic manner. So, be clear in your relationship, and avoid any accusation using Wikipedia to promote a forthcoming book (though adding it in 'Further reading' is fine. I'm not sure I can offer
I have just found the article you refer to (Nerine Desmond)), though I note you have already edited as User:David Desmond up until last year. You may be aware that we do not permit more than one account to edit at once, so I presume you have forgotten your password and cannot access it (though I see there is an email associated with it, so you can request a password reminder). My suggestion - again, for openness - is to clearly state the connection between those two accounts, and permanently abandon one of them.
I hope some of this helps, and seeing your posts on the other account, it's worth me pointing out that Wikimedia Commons is run completely separately from Wikipedia, so questions asked on one platform about the other one are liable to go unanswered. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
your cool :D Firestar9990 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

many thanks again for all your (further) essential advice! In my ‘mind‘s eye’, I had made only a couple of trifling amendments to Nerine's page on ‘List of South African artists’ in 2019. So revisited that page again (having mentally ‘written it off’), and am quite surprised at how many changes I had made! I must conclude that this is yet another symptom of ‘old timer‘s disease’. sigh… And I definitely will NOT be tinkering with that page again. Shall only mention A Brush with Life in ‘Further Reading’ on the ‘women artists’ page. Oh, and ‘good on yer’ for awarding me a ‘BarnStar’!

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeSoto 383 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your funny message: It looks like global lockdown is distorting everyone's perception of time! Interstellarity (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

Hi Nick I'm sorry in typing letters in all capital and I'll never do it again and I'm new so thank you now I know how to type — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANKHEEE DADDY (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, ANKHEEE DADDY, - so long as you listen and act on the advice of experienced editors, you'll be OK. If you're not sure - just ask. We all take things seriously here, and it can be a bit of a learning curve. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nick I will listen and follow the rules on Wikipedia ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick how are you ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ANKHEEE DADDY. I'm fine - thanks for asking. How is your own Wikipedia Adventure going? When you've a moment, I wonder if I could ask you to think about reducing the amount of anime/manga-related content on your userpage, if that's OK, please? Or, at the very least, please don't add any more. A little bit is OK, but other editors might feel you are not really using your user page in the way we expect. i.e. related to Wikipedia editing, and building the encyclopaedia. Any problems, just drop a note at the Teahouse. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nick I will do it now and my adventure is awesome ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick How are you doing I took out two anime/manga 

ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I’ll accept it just this once!!!! Lol! Still so subtle and suttle! Lol. Galendalia (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Barnstar for your collection!

The Barnstar of Integrity
When I look through everything you have done, said, and said again (and again) (and again) and all the help you give to everyone, I felt you deserve this for just being you and a stand up guy! Thanks for all of your contributions over the years! Galendalia (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Galendalia: Hey - I don't know what to say. Thank you. I do make mistakes, too; but I hide them ever so well! TTFN, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: You deserve it man! TTFN (p.s. yes you do hide them well lol) Galendalia (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal info in User pages

Hi Nick, I see what did at a user page just now. I come across this frequently and it is most often clear a juvenile. Should revdel be the appropriate action? If so, I will start requesting it. Thanks in advance. S0091 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, S0091. Yes, good question. It certainly is. In the edits you've just seen, there's not only a bit too much sharing of personal contact details, but also a little bit too much of social chit-chat, so I will keep a watch on that new editor and of those who interact with her. Revdel is effective to protect minors as it hides those details (and in this instance, their revealing edit summary) from view. That said, any other admin can access deleted content, so sometimes judgement is needed whether to go for oversight, too. Here's my approach (though formal advice is available at WP:REVDELREQUEST):
  • The quick, no nonsense approach, is to email an oversight request to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight Great for serious breaches of privacy - but not necessarily the speediest. Provide a DIFF and your reasons for requesting oversight.
  • For a simple RevDel, avoid going directly to an admin like myself and saying publicly on their userpage (nor indeed at WP:AN)"Hey, you wanna go and revdel this chick's personal email and the hot selfie she's just posted!" That'll only draw attention to the issue! Be subtle. The admin may be in bed, asleep, anyway.
  • Prior to getting admin rights myself, I concluded that first finding a currently active admin was essential. (I'd look at WP:ANI/WP:AN/or WP:TH for recent edits by admins. (Easy if you have the 'admin highlighter' script enabled, so each admin signature is highlighted in turquoise. Get it if you haven't done so already!)
  • I'd drop a note on their talk page, simply asking "Revdel request: Are you able to make a revdel of personal information right now if I were to email you the details?" If I got a quick, positive reply back, I'd send a diff of the edit, explaining my concerns. If not, I'd ask a second admin. After that, I'd give up and directly email Oversight.
How does all that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance Nick. Yep, sounds good. S0091 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: Just to let you know, I requested full 'oversight' at 00:00 UTC and received the following reply a couple of hours later: "We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. A member of the Oversight team has suppressed the information in question. Thanks for the vigilance and please let us know of any other edits needing suppression that you see in the future." So it could be argued that going to an administrator first is not really necessary if one feels the published info needs fully oversighting anyway (meaning that not even an admin can now view the content). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

holic

Okay, I stopped being addicted here, now I am a Wikiholic at the Simple English Wikipedia (1000 edits in 19 days!) Yikes! lol --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: Wow. Not sure if that's good or bad news. Our loss is their gain, I suppose. Brill! Just so long as it doesn't impact your real world achievements and grades, I'm OK. All the best (and don't breathe on any old folk), Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never edit Wikipedia while doing your law homework cause that got me a 2/12 --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! You daft ******! You'll not do that again, I hope? (and don't say I didn't warn you!) Nick Moyes (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's hard... Wikipedia is more interesting than school... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't not go on Wikipedia, damn it, I need to stop but can't. Oh well, it's my fault I found Wikipedia --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: LOL! Just don't let it get in the way of too much school work - that comes first, as we've discussed previously. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am in law class right now as I am writing this... lol --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sh#t, I am failing all my assignments --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me

Hey can you “email me” please? I have a sensitive question for you. Thank you Nick. GalendaliaChat Me Up 05:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Galendalia: Feel free to email me. yourself. I may not necessarily reply by email, but I won't reveal anything you say. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I don’t see that option for you. GalendaliaChat Me Up 06:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should see it half way down on the far left hand side of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Thank you for your assistance,I hope you forgive my ambiguity. Good luck on mountains; may your eyelashes never freeze.

Willthewanderer (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for removing my email address and personal info! Actually, it was an e-mail that I was not using anymore, but thanks anyway! Happy editing, Dani Hart (Talk) 14:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowblade08 other account

Suggest also block User:Askdjfh as that is a second account that Shadowblade created. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: thanks David. Yes, I put an indefinite block on that account at the same time. I see no reason for a 'test account' to be left open for a new user who has managed to cause such disruption and irritation amongst other editors in such a short space of time. Hopefully, when and if they return, they will show greater maturity and listen to what other editors are telling them is the way to behave. I was, however, concerned about their allegation of the f-word being used against them, but I saw no diffs to support this. Did you? Quite a bit of personal detail has now been oversighted, so I can't really investigate that any further I don't think. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I see any responder to Shadowblade08 express hate, or anger, or use curse words, and no one was sending porn. Mostly it was answer questions and trying to provide guidance toward proper Wikipedia behavior. I do not believe this person's parents were using the account, as all postings were in line with what a 12 year old would do. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of detective work: At F word, Shadowblade08 left a talk comment about finding the word "Fuck" to be an article, and had also come across images of nude people in various articles. So, nothing actually sent to Shadowblade08. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks, David notMD, I suspected it was all imaginary. I'd found the edit you dug up. It all makes sense now. Hey ho; back to the coal face... Nick Moyes (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For dealing with :Shadowblade08‎ with patience, forbearance, and as much gentleness as possible under the circumstances. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 00:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Deepfriedokra. That means a lot - my first unblock review, too. I hate seeing young kids implode like that when they have the potential to become great editors. Maybe they will, one day in the future. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note re your message

I wrote a reply to your note at the other editor's talk page; I would like to discuss it here, if that is okay. thanks. what time frame do you wish me to agree to? I am open to accepting a specific time frame. Do you feel that twelve months is the time period you prefer? thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 23:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst, I don't wish to be sucked into a long conversation over this - sorry - I was genuinely trying to be helpful. I know your heart is in the right place. I knew my bluntness in my reply on Iridescent's talk page might either offend you, or steer you to better ways of working. Yes, I really do think a 12 month commitment to only editing article content (whilst still enabling you to contribute at WP:HISTORY) would be the best outcome for you and the Project. Are you agreeable to that, my friend? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well, I am relieved that you are willing to discuss this amicably. yes, your message at Iridescent's talk page caused me huge emotional distress. I do not want to create a prolonged discussion either. I am open to ALL your guidance on this. I am practically crying with distress at this point. your willingness to discuss this calmly is a source of huge relief to me. yes, I would like to discuss this here, is that is okay.
to begin with, could you please tell me whether anything that I actually did at WP:Village pump (proposals) was somehow counter to WP:CIVIL? and yes, I did try to improve my behaviour and editing habits in EVERY respect. I have NOT canvassed at all. I only made one or two proposals since then. and a proposal that I made at WP: Community bulletin board was entirely accepted and AGREED upon by user:Moxy and user:Headbomb. so it seemed like the main two parties to the initial issue has admirably and commenably overcome any prior objections they might have had.
can we please discuss this via email? I am greatly worried by the overall tone of this. I am glad to discuss this with you. I would like to do so in an atmosphere where we can both approach each other calmly, positively and constructively. I wouild greatly appreciate your understanding. I will email you now. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 00:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Sm8900. If I were in your shoes, I think I'd also be deeply, deeply upset by what I said to you, and by what others have said to you. I would probably also be crying too, because it's really not nice to be told to stop doing stuff. I know that; I would be in tears, too. But, no, I am not agreeable to discussing things with you by email. I honestly do not want to be sucked into having to discuss every minutiae of every past discussion, and I am not going to look back to past discussions to evaluate every issue. Look: I do know that you care about Wikipedia; I also know that you want to improve it. But, unfortunately, you've not done it in the right way. You simply need to recognise that, especially as it's upset/annoyed/irritated rather a lot of experienced editors. So, by asking you to agree to taking a step back, and taking a 12 month time-out - I'm hoping you can contribute well to article space, as can the rest of us. Best wishes (and have a hug, too, if you feel that helps). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok. what are the choices here? by the way, I sent you an email, because I had not seen your reply here; you can feel free to disregard it. ok, but what are the options here? are you open to discussing this matter, or the length of time? or are you saying that if I do not agree, you will go to WP:ANI? by the way, I made a set of proposals at another venue, which were fully AGREED to by both Moxy and Headbomb, who were the editors primarily raising issues with my prior statements. So I thought I had succeeded in resolving this positively. and I went out of my way to be fully courteous at WP:Village Pump (proposals), just now. as far as accepting a twelve-month limit, I would be open to that proposal, but I would prefer to address this via an alternate approach.
I am willing to take a step back NOW, and furthermore, to not make any improper proposals on a PERMANENT basis. I don't see any need or any reason to make any in the near future, and again, I am willing to accept any guidelines on a permanent basis. I thought I WAS honoring what I said to you previously, I DID forgo any proposals for a length of time, as you said, and further I made sure to not canvass anyone regarding any ideas. I don't necessarily disagree with twelve months as a time frame;l simply am not sure that the time period you suggest as a moratorium would be effective; I would prefer to simply to agree to improve my conduct, editing habits, etc, any way you wish, right NOW, in a PERMANENT fashion. I think that is much superior as a long-term solution. by the way, could you please let me know if you are willing to discuss further? I am open to any and all guidance and insights on this. Please feel free to let me know. I greatly appreciate your assistance. I don't necessarily disagree with the need for twelve months, but I don't specifically agree, either; I am saying that I don't have any underlying agenda; as I have nothing currently that I need to propose, but I simply would like to resolve this more positively NOW, rather than assuming no amicable agreement is possible, without a lengthy moratorium. I am open to ANY response you may wish to provide. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 01:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: Firstly, I am probably not going to respond to your email. I will, however, do you the courtesy of reading it tomorrow. But, right now, you ask what your options are. I can't speak for the community of editors; I can only speak for what I think they might want. I believe they (including Iridescent and Moxy) would seek a commitment from you to a complete 12 month break from all non-article based edits (except for allowing you to focus on what (I assumed) was your prime interest: WP:HISTORY.) And when you resume activity there, that you'd be more willing to 'let go of the bone' when others don't support your proposals. That seems to have been the real problem here - the rather large time-sink that your ideas and input have caused. I could ask you to make that commitment at WP:ANI, rather than here on my talk page. But if, having considered what I've proposed, and you're agreeable, then can we hold you to that? If you do agree, and then breach that agreement, I would be agreeable to implementing a full editing block for the remainder of that 12 month period. I can't force you to accept this, as it's only my suggestion, not that of the whole community. But if you do accept here, we'll probably hold you to it. I don't want to get into a huge and detailed discussion of all the minutiae of past discussions here, so would refer back to WP:ANI if you're not comfortable with these proposals. If you feel I am not being supportive of you, but am being a heavy-handed bastard and a jerk, then do please say so now. I'm OK if you feel that. But I really hope you see that I am actually saying this for the good of Wikipedia and also of yourself (even if you don't think that right now!). Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
Nick Moyes, I appreciate your reply above. and yes, thank you for the courtesy of being willing to read my email. I do appreciate that. I have read al your points, and I am open to any guidance that you may have. with respect, may I ask what time-sink are you referring to? I accepted all suggestions put to me to modify my proposal, and asked for further feedback. More importantly, I took seriously the commitment to not implement ANY proposal without first getting FULL consensus. and also, I took very seriously the commitment to NOT canvass for any proposal, but rather to present it simply in a single appropriate venue for making formal proposals, i.e. WP:Village pump (proposals), and to allow discussion to proceed there. and furthermore, I was specifically careful to do so courteously, and to hear all opinions and feedback put to me. and again, I made sure to fully adhere to WP:Civil, and to to WP:AGF, two core principles which I fully agree with. I do NOT think you are being a jerk. I think you are motivated by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. I simply am asking you to sincerely hear me out, and pursue a more positive, constructive, collegial and helpful way to fully and completely resolve this NOW. as you yourself said above, once any putative 12-month had elapsed, you would still have a suggestion as to how I could positively proceed. so my preference would be instead to adopt any such guidelines now, to make a permanent improvement in any area desired. I appreciate your consideration. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 02:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Persistency is a virtue in life but leads you to the dark side here on Wikipedia. Two editors have this problem as of late and any moratorium they're willing to join to prevent them from being blocked would be great.--Moxy 🍁 01:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouncing that you're going to restrict yourself to editing articles for 12 months, isn't necessary, as you're not currently facing a ban or block. Just practice that self-restriction & all will be well. Question is - What happens when those 12 months are up. :) GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, I am very pleased to see you here. you and I have successfully forged a highly positive working relationship in recent weeks!! I highly value your considerable insights, knowledge, and helpful input in various items here recently. and we did have a rather successful exchange, over at WP:CBB, didn't we? I was highly pleased to accept every one of your wise suggestions fully, and to get a much-improved outcome as a result. similarly, as well for GoodDay. I like and appreciate your willingness to engage here.
ok, so Moxy, I will open the question. you have been largely fair, helpful, and interactive in our recent discussions, and I welcome your input. forget for a moment about a moratorium for the time being, although I am NOT disagreeing with that idea outright. just please tell me, which guidelines, modifications to my conduct, editing approach, etc, would you like to see me adopt? you are the one who has had the most experience out of anyone I know with putting aside past differences, and finding ways to work together POSITIVELY. so I would invite your input here. Please feel free to offer any suggestions, insight, or guidance. I see no reason to not abide by any guidelines or principles that you might indicate. only, let's continue to have a discussion that is constructive and positive, on things we can do positively to resolve this now, rather than trying to freeze things for twelve months. by the way, we can discuss this here, or alternately on your talk page; whereever you find it most convenient. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 01:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CaptainEek here, I've been trying to mentor Sm8900. I've had some communication with them, and am hoping that them agreeing to edit only content for the next year would be a good solution. I'm willing to continue working with them to show them the content ropes. I think part of the issue is that Sm8900 has not been involved in much content work, and just wasn't sure how to go about it. Thus instead of content, they turned their enthusiasm towards an area they had worked more: behind the scenes. I'm hoping to turn their great energy towards writing some good articles! At the end of the year I can talk to Sm8900 and evaluate how they've grown in the course of a year. Who knows, they might find after a year of article writing that there is no need to push such ardent reforms, or will hopefully emerge more knowledgeable about our core policies and the realities of day-to-day editing :) Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask Headbomb to weigh in here. because they and Moxy, more than anyone I know or have ever seen at Wikipedia, have been simultaneously willing to put aside all differences and work with me positively on ideas they thought had any merit, yet simultaneously let me know when I was overdoing it a tad, or alternately making a complete hash of things. I like, respect, and admire all of their input, and would like to invite them to weigh in. as you can all see, my own mentor is here, and all they could suggest was to fully agree with the suggestion for punishment to be meted out to me, when I have gone out of my way to FULLY abide by WP:Civil, WP:AGF, etc, and as I will say AGAIN, if you want an example of two editors who willingly and admirably put past differences aside, in order to work with me on positive ideas, look no further than Moxy and Headbomb, both of whom have been more than willing to let me know flat out when they thought I was on the wrong track. and GoodDay, I appreciate your positive sentiments as well. however, sorry, but just to correct you, I am under a threat of a ban. or a block. or worse. with that said, I am fully willing to work with, accept, understand and abide by ANY and all guidance and insight provided to me here, by the considerably knowledgable and insightful experienced editors gathered here.
My only request that we take steps to resolve this positively NOW. I am willing to adopt any positive guidelines and insight provided to me now. Adopting a 12-month freeze will not resolve the problem; it will exacerbate it. it will put a permanent stigma on me that would not improve my relationship with anyone who is already pre-disposed to view me negatively. Again, currently, I am not planning to present any proposals, and do not anticipate doing so for the forseeable future. but if I did, I would like to get the guidance needed now to do so properly. and again, with the two editors who showed the most willingness to challenge me when they felt I was wrong, there is NO need for a moratorium to restore positivity; they have both ALREADY reached that point, willingly, and openly, without any request from myself, but rather driven simply by a basic willingness and common openness to ignore past differences, and place those aside, and to work together to make Wikipedia a better place. THAT is the focus that I would most aspire to, and that is the discussion in the PRESENT that I would most heartfully recommend and request to this assemblage here. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Due keep in mind. Refusing or failing to get the point in a polite fashion, is still refusing or failing to get the point. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay. well, in that case, let me just briefly say, I do not have any proposals I am planning to present right now. but I would prefer to get an answer to the question of exactly how my most recent interaction was improper in any way; and let me say in advance that I will willingly accept any guidelines, recommendations, or indications put to me on how to behave and exhibit conduct that would be on a better and more compliant level. and let me also say, since I have no plans right now to present any proposals, how about a viable alternative to any such punitive measures? such as, before submitting any such proposals on any level, I first submit to a further level of review? such as contacting any individual admin or experienced editor, getting their full feedback, and restricting myself to taking only the steps that they indicate are acceptable? that is just one possible option. I am just trying to demonstrate that I do get it. I thought the point of Village Pump was that it is an acceptable venue to discuss such proposals, and NOT to try to discuss, present, or act upon any such proposals in any other location in any way. so that is a principle that I willingly take very seriously. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly interested in revisiting the specifics that lead to this, but since you've asked me to comment and give you advice, and you seem to be having a hard time, I'll give you these words of advice: review WP:HERE (third point). Not as a contrast to WP:NOTHERE, but rather absorb what it means on its own. You had an idea you felt strongly about, the community didn't buy in. That happens. But the point of Wikipedia is not to have certain behind-the-scenes page fall inline with your [or anyone's] vision of what a behind-the-scenes page should be. The point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia that represents the sum of human knowledge. That is, creating and improving articles. Find a topic you like. Maybe you like dancing. Maybe you like cars. Maybe you like coin-collecting. Browse WP:Wikiproject and find stuff you're interested in. Join them. Watch their article alerts pages. Get involved in cleanup. Improve sourcing. Write. And just ignore the back end until you actually need to get involved in the back end. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

okay. I do appreciate your reply to me. that sounds reasonable. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 05:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, it so happens, I like Agency-specific police departments of the United States. And political charters. And diplomatic conferences. And Domestic implements. And Exploration of North America. And, the Sono arsenic filter. and one entirely new type of article, 2020s in political history. so, see? I do have some actual interests. I appreciate you asking. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 12:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New accord and understandings

Hey, Sm8900 I've just read you email - sorry for the hiatus as I'm in UTC+1 time here in the UK, and have just got up. First off - have a big hug from me, if that helps. I'm really sorry that what I said distressed you. By my being intentionally blunt, I was trying to be 'cruel to be kind'. First off, don't be fearful that I am going to personally block you. That would be a community decision if any matter ever went back to ANI. Yes, I think you committing to yourself and your mentor, CaptainEek, to shift focus permanently towards front-of-house content changes is an excellent idea, not requiring you to commit to some informal agreement on pain of pain blocked if you breached it. But steering away permanently from any more of those niggling and seemingly repetitive editor interactions to push forward some change that nobody else feels strongly supportive about is going to be helpful for everyone involved here. It's when someone starts trying to get to the bottom of every minutiae of an interaction and then politely forces everyone else to explain precisely what they mean, how, precisely, someone is perceived to have done something wrong, and it's when they demand 'chapter and verse' on what it is that is all so irritating and exhausting everyone else... - it's at exactly that point that everyone simply wants them to stop talking and take in that everyone else is telling them something different. That should - on its own - be enough. I've seen this with teenage schoolgirls so often - they can irritate the hell out of everyone around them by wanting to sort out everyone's problems for them, but in so doing make every else simply want to give them a slap, or to say something so mind-blowingly rude, just to stop them from going on.
-problem is- the behind the scenes stuff can sometimes get like that gaggle of schoolgirls. If just one of them doesn't know when to stop, it causes more problems than it solves. That, I think, had been your past trait, and it's one that I was pleased to hear you had been addressing - at least until I was dragged into last night's discussion on  Iridescent's talk page. It's the skill to sense when to "back off and 'drop the stick'" and to stay quiet that perhaps needs nurturing. I do think the areas of content creation and anti-vandalism really teaches one the need for precision and conciseness when interacting with others here. (Of course, I appreciate this reply is, itself a bit TL;DR, but I am still genuinely trying to be helpful and supportive, even if it doesn't sound like it to you right now.)
Please don't feel the need to reply in equal measure. Either a short rejection of what I'm saying, or a short acknowledgement of what you're going to PERMANENTLY do or not do from here on in will suffice. Keep it short and simple from now on is my best advice. Let's all get on with adding content to this encyclopaedia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
Hi Nick. thank you sincerely for your great reply. yes, I do appreciate the thoughts and sentiments that you express above. and your statement above of what steps on my part would be helpful is simple and easy to follow. Now. as to your highly positive question about what I am willing to do for the future. here it is:
1. well, I think one simple commitment would be to avoid the behaviors that defined this interaction. I thought that going from Idea Lab to the Proposals tab, in order to generate a greater volume of response, was a legitimate move. since it appears it wasn't, then I can agree to not do so.
2. I think your additional point above was that if a proposal does not have any apparent support in the venue where I presented it, then I should simply drop it, rather than seeking to further discuss it, tweak it, seek modifications, trying to pare it down, etc etc. is that accurately stated? I think that's your point. Based on that, I am fully glad to commit to fully avoiding any such behavior as well. If I did make a proposal, hypothetically, and someone else responded with significant objections, and no one responded in support, then I could discard that proposal.
  • I would like to note that I might fully discontinue a discussion of some item in a public venue, but then might seek counsel from my mentor if possible, or someone else who agrees to help me with any questions I have; in other words, any requests for further input would not be on multiple talk pages, but I would want to be able to be able to turn to at least some experienced person here who would be agreeable to providing positive guidance and blunt feedback.
3. If an experienced, good-faith editor such as yourself provides further input on any behaviors that are problematic, then I will be glad to utterly refrain from such behaviors immediately.
4. and further just as an article of good faith, I can agree to make no more proposals for the next few weeks; at least two weeks, and probably a good deal more than that. I am not trying to be litigous about this; in truth, I would have to be rather... unwise... to make any new proposals now. So I agree entirely, better to take a step back and concentrate only on basic editing for now.
5. You asked above that I avoid revisiting minutiae. No problem, I will avoid doing so. Please note though, in order to fully address any concerns, sometime I may ask in good faith for information on the actual details for any specific concerns expressed. So your statement on that above is of great value. I may ask you for other details, if needed and if this colloquy develops further.
the only thing I would ask, and this is FULLY consistent with my initial statements above, is that ANY concerns be presented in the form of a positive dialogue. one of the main reasons for my distress was I was truly perplexed by all this. I was trying to understand, how can I have reached a plateau of positive accord with Moxy and Headbomb in certain specific matters, and yet be coming back to this issue as if nothing had changed? that was my sincere question on this. so please assume that I am truly open to any and all feedback, that any questions are in good faith, and that I am open to real discussion and real change.
so does that cover it? if not feel free to present any other points. or alternately, feel free to discuss or present any concerns to my mentor. you do wear the admin hat now, so I feel that my asking you to allow for any positive discussion of any such concerns is simply fair and valid. if desired, please do absolutely feel free to cite any other concerns that you may have. I sincerely hope I have addressed all of your concerns above. if not, feel free to let me know; I will willingly accept any other points that you may make. I hope that is helpful. your insights are appreciated. thanks!!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: Yes, you know, I think that does over it. Well done and thank you. If it helps, I am willing to put in a bit of blunt and or subtle feedback from time to time - but maybe you might discuss that first with Moxy or Headbomb, or any other current mentor. It might even be a good idea if one of those mentors makes that initial approach to a third party, rather than yourself. That way, nobody can unfairly accuse you of bothering them unnecessarily with some matter or another that they deem trivial, but which is important to you.
Finally, maybe this near-global lockdown is making some of us more grumpy than usual, and more prone to sharp words. Sorry about that. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick. thanks so much for your positive reply, and for all your help. I am very glad that we could reach some positive accord on this. I am very glad to hear all of your insights above. I will be glad to follow all guidelines set above, and also, I will be glad to hear any other concerns that you may have. I appreciate all your help. if I have further questions, I will let you know, but I think this has covered all points. and also, thanks very much for your gracious and generous apology above. that is very thoughtful and considerate of you. I appreciate it. thanks very much!! see you. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 23:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, since I keep being brought up in this discussion. I'm neither hostile to nor supportive of the recent events, and offer moral support as encouragement to find something you like doing on Wikipedia. But beyond the words I offered above, I am unwilling to be that mentor. I'll also note that a "solemn commitment" to anything in "permanently" seems a bit silly to me. You had one idea (or group of ideas) that didn't fly. Just stop pushing for that idea / set of ideas. Doesn't mean you can't have other good ideas, but if you find support lacking, it likely means support isn't there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi Headbomb. thanks so much for your helpful note above. you feedback above is extremely helpful and positive, and I greatly appreciate it. your insights were very helpful in elevating this entire discussion, and proceeding into a much constructive and helpful note, and for that I greatly and deeply thank you.
In the future, I may run some ideas, suggestions, etc by you on your talk page, based on your highly useful and valuable input here. yes, I agree with you, you do not need to be my mentor; in other words, I would not approach you for input on my own personal editing style. however, your input here on procedural matters, and your input in recent discussions regarding ideas that I had proposed, were all extremely helpful. Based on that, I may approach you for your feedback and insights, in the future, . Don't worry, as I noted above, I will be taking a hiatus of some duration, as I already noted above. but I do appreciate your help. and if i do come by your talk page, you are still absolutely free of course to decline to comment, or to simply say "sorry, but that idea just doesn't wash with me." or to provide any and all other feedback you may wish.
Anyway, I do appreciate all of your insights above. again, you were the first person to respond favorably to my request for simple positive input on some direct and specific information on ways that I could improve, and any steps that might enable me to positively address this situation, and to move on and get things back to normal. I really appreciate your help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. To Nick Moyes, and to others here, I just want to let you know that I will be placing a message on some individual talk pages for a few editors who have been directly involved in discussions relating to these issues, to let them know of the new clarifications, and the new accord and understandings reached here on this page, above. the reason for this is simple; I have already been directly contacted by some editors with some emphasis, letting me know that they were viewing my actions as having been subjected to some constraints, based on the discussion several months ago at WP:ANI.

Based on that, it seems somewhat appropriate to notify a few editors who may have made some direct comments, to let them know the situation has now been positively clarified, modified, and updated and brought to a clearer and more specific positive resolution in a positive manner, based on the colloquy above.

this seems like a worthwhile and helpful way to bring this whole issue to a positive resolution, and to allow our activities and interactions to proceed more positively from this point forward, in the future. I hope that sounds okay. If you wish, please feel free to comment. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion I have is not to tell people who are providing constructive feedback to assume good faith, act civilly, and not to make personal comments. The vast majority of the feedback I've seen has been on your actions and not made any assumptions on your personal motivations. I feel editors have made extreme efforts to assume good faith on your part and try to guide you towards productive areas, and so telling them to assume good faith is disheartening and engenders bad feelings. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

telling them to assume good faith is disheartening and engenders bad feelings.. let me get this straight, asking people to assume good faith engenders bad faith? your statement itself is disheartening. But I mean that with 100% desire to put this behind us, to move ahead positively, and to work with you positively in any respect. So actually, I do appreciate your suggestion, and will sincerely take it to heart. can we please agree to addressing this positively, and moving forward positively? I appreciate your help and understanding. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the feedback I've seen has been on your actions and not made any assumptions on your personal motivations. with respect, then you have not read this talk page very closely. please go back, and read it again. the measure that was being offered here was to bar me for twelve months from entire venues at Wikipedia. to their credit, the editors who proposed that, were entirely open to finding positive ways to compromise and to move ahead together positively. but I think that a measure of that magnitude does signify some doubt about my motives, doesn't it? and also, did you read the talk page section at the prior discussion that led here? seriously, I appreciate your attempt to be positive. but I think you are somewhat mistaken. Several people here were quite disenchanted with me, my motives, my approach, and my actions. with that said, the people who felt that way were ENTIRELY motivated by a desire to make Wikipedia a better place. Based on that I have absolutely accepted and implemented ALL of their concerns and feedback. I will be glad to continue to do so. And I do entirely appreciate your positive intent in trying to be helpful, and in commenting here. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have of course read the feedback closely. I did not say that no one was disenchanted with you, so I don't know what you believe I am mistaken about. Yes, telling people to do things that they are doing already is disheartening, and makes me sad as well, knowing that reaching out in good faith is being misinterpreted as bad faith. Asking editors to address matters positively when they've gone to great lengths to do so already is dispiriting. Being misquoted (no one said that bad faith was being engendered) is discouraging. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I accept, and agree with, all of your valuable points above. and I appreciate your suggestions entirely and in full. is that helpful? as you yourself said, " I feel editors have made extreme efforts to assume good faith on your part and try to guide you towards productive areas." ok, fair enough. since you have specifically said that you do assume good faith on my part, I do genuinely and seriously appreciate that statement on your part. Seriously, thank you. and based on that, I hope we can move on, to addressing this issue positively and working together, based on your highly positive and helpful comments above. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Getting to the point: SM8900, ease off on the paragraph after paragraph of excruciatingly over-polite replies. Isaacl has a point about AGF and I'm darned if I was going to explain it to you. Ease off on making any proposals for as long as you possibly can. A year would be lovely; two weeks is far too short -you decide for yourself, and surprise us all, please. Ease off on innumerable edits to my and other people's talk pages - that can irritate too. Just go get on with some content creation or anti-vandalism work, please, and let us live in peace. I think this discussion should end now. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. Thanks. —Sm8900 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for informing me, I will check the Teahouse out! I will keep those points in mind while I edit Wikipedia. Thanks! Dani Hart (Talk) 13:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

Discussion at Talk:The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi Nick. Perhaps you can help sort this out one way or the other. I can't keep up with pace of the posting on either the article's talk page or my user take page, and I need to turn in for the night. You're quite patient and good at resolving things at the Teahouse; so, perhaps you can help here. If l've posted anything wrong, feel free to correct me. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dropping me in the doo-doo with this one! I can see why you've been chasing your tail all day over this, and why their insistence made you so dog-tired tonight. You must really be at the end of your tether. I think the editor is genuinely barking up the wrong tree in trying to add all that WP:OR. They really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK although, since you left, they've taken it to WP:NORN. For an editor who can't create diffs or remember to sign their posts, there's clearly life in the old dog yet. I'm pretty sure I can sniff that the consensus will not go their way, so I've added the article to my watch list and will definitely have a bone to pick with them if I see them continuing. They really will be in the dog house if they do, though maybe Bonadea will get there first. I actually remember seeing the film many years ago. You should try to watch it; it's really the dog's bollocks! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. I totally get that the other person is "passionate" about this; however, not only couldn't I keep up with the pace of their posts, but it was getting pretty hard to avoid sounding repetitive without giving off the impression that I was dismissing them just for the sake of doing so. Now that the discussion has moved to ORN, perhaps others will pipe in and give their opinions and a consensus will be reached one way or another. I've got no problem with that and thus will let others try and sort things out for awhile. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Hope you got a good sleep. I'm now off for mine. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation

Victoria & Landmarks is making falsely attributed edits:

  • Special:Diff/956047154 - adding awards to their talk page and posing like they were given them by other editors (including you!)
  • Special:Diff/956043583 - changing the name of an AfC reviewer to themself in a draft article

In addition:

  • Special:Diff/956045773 - suggests they had another account in the past without identifying the old account (sockpuppet?)

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drm310. Looks like this COI editor has now got themselves blocked. Might try to return though. Stay alert! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-20

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Everyone can now import photos from Flickr to Commons with the UploadWizard. Before this only autopatrollers on Commons could import photos from Flickr. [26]

Problems

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 May. It will be on all wikis from 14 May (calendar).

Future changes

  • Advanced item JavaScript scripts and gadgets can no longer check multiple keys at once via mw.config.exists() or mw.user.tokens.exists(). You can use exists() or get() to check one at a time instead. [30]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I need to notify you.

my little brother made a nonconstructive edit (logged out, thankfully) I reverted it, but I would like to tell you that if he figures out my password, I want you to notify me immediately please (if there is a random letters and numbers edit its probably him). I know that "my little brother" is a common excuse, but I am telling the truth.Firestar9990 (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Hi Firestar9990. My suggestion to you would be to do your very best to make sure that your little brother doesn't figure out your password and also make it known to him that you want him to stop trying to do so as explained in WP:COMPACC. Any edits made by your account will be attributed to your account regardless of who makes them; so, if you're unable to control your account and prevent others from accessing it, then there's a really good chance it's going to be considered to be WP:COMPROMISED, which means that an administrator may have no choice but to indefinitely block it until it can be verified that you have re-gained control over it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Ok. I get it. I actually was just doing that for fun, not meaning to publish it. I think it has too many details and it's a bit biased. Thanks for letting me know, though. Dani Hart (Talk) 13:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniHart08: You're welcome. It's better to experiment on things for fun in your own sandbox. Once it's in a Draft: article the rest of us assume your intention is to eventually publish it properly, so I was just giving feedback. on that basis.
I wonder if I could get you to reply to posts o the page where they were first made, and 'ping' the posting editor if you wish - though they're probably watching your page for a short while if they've posted there. This keeps everything 'on the same page' - as it were, and makes conversations easier to follow. Just indent your reply with a colon, or at least one colon more than the previous comment had used. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, can you tell me if I am doing this right??? Dani Hart (Talk) 13:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Originally it wasn't quite right, as you needed one extra colon to create the indented appearance. But I see you've come back and added the second one, and so it's now perfect. You should always try to use the 'Preview changes' button to check how your reply will look. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will do, thank you. By the way, do you like my signature? I learned how to make it different colors at the Teahouse. DaniHart08 (Talk). 14:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on learning to do that. It is just a litle pale, so some people without perfect vision might strain to see it on some monitors, though it's not so bad that I'm going to say you should change it, or anything like that. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are you?

Hi, I know you're a busy editor but wanted to check how're you doing ^_^. Time has passed and you're like my inspiration and a look-up editor (I mean an editor to look up to) ^_^. I am proud of myself today, I mediated between two users successfully. And that's great because I am, and I recognise it fully, a coward, because I back off easily when confronted or challenged. I have never stood up for myself and I'm I'm easy to back off ^_^. However, as I said I'm proud of myself today (in the internet world), I am proud of other things in the real world of course, lol. Well, just expanded the text to tell you how I am doing. Hope not to have bothered you at all, :) ^_^. I cherish you ^_^ (with all due respect of course, I don't know if that's a used phrase in English) ^_^. Cheers!. CoryGlee (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, CoryGlee. Great to hear from you, and hope you're keeping well. Those are very kind words - thank you so much. Gaining confidence is like a tiny seedling which, given the right environment can grow up tall and strong, but it's still capable of being bent or snapped if pushed to far. So it sounds like you gently helping two editors is just the right environment for you to develop both Wikipedia skills, but also life skills. Once you have the confidence that you understand our policies and guidelines, it's a lot easier to advise or tell other editors how best to proceed. You've most certainly not bothered me, and it sounds like you're doing OK during this current world crisis. (Being young helps ... I envy you!) Regards from a sunny UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From A to Z in one step?

Hi, Nick. I was gratified to read your response to my comment at AIV. I had been surprised at your original comment, as it did not fit in with my experience of you, and your further comment seemed more in character. However, I was somewhat taken aback by seeing that very soon after an incident where you seemed to be insisting on more warnings before blocking than I thought necessary, you then blocked an editor who had received no warnings at all. (IP 2001:569:73F2:DA00:41D1:FF7C:3180:425F) JBW (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: OK - I take your point, and I've just gone back to look at that one, in case I made a mistake, or was being unreasonable (which I could have been). I'm only too happy to be corrected, and of course as a new admin I'm seeing how easy it can be to report someone to AIV, and yet how much more care/judgement/gut-reaction is needed in blocking correctly. My logic (if that's what I dare call it!) was that the IPv6 editor's 8 consecutive bad faith edits indicated a user who was determined to be disruptive and merited an immediate 3-day block; as you rightly pointed out, it isn't always a case of having to have four stepped warnings (I was wrong to suggest that, though still hope to by the general idea of it). I did think that one bad faith edit (probably from a bored kid) didn't merit reporting and immediate blocking. It might sound oxymoronic, but where AGF is justified, I do genuinely try to give it; though there are times at when dealing with vandalism that one daren't assume too much. Getting the balance right - both as a reporter and an admin responding to those reports - is never easy. I do try to give feedback by engaging with AIV reporters if I think they've been a bit gung-ho, just as I appreciate you saying the same to me as a new admin, as I may equally have been in the case of that IP. (I'm often told by other admins that I'm too generous towards people, so maybe AIV is turning me nasty. (I hope not!) I genuinely mean it when I say please feel free to offer further constructive criticism in future, too, as that way I can learn, and everyone benefits. (Sorry for the TL;DR wall of words!) Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
Wow! Are you really a new admin? I thought you had been one for ages. If I'd realised, I would have expressed myself in gentler terms, so as not to bite a newbie admin. I probably came across as more critical than I meant to be. I am used to assuming that seasoned admins (which I wrongly thought you were) will take such remarks lightly, but I am sure when I was a new admin I was nervous enough about possibly doing anything wrong that I would have found such remarks intimidating, so please accept my apology for the way I expressed myself.
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on what you did. (I will try to be more diplomatic this time.) Firstly, regarding the comments at AIV, I fully agree with the essential substance of what you said. The report was inappropriate for an editor with only one edit and one warning, and you were right to decline to take action. The only significant point where I didn't agree was your remark about level 4 warnings, which has already been covered, and I don't see any need to say any more. Secondly, regarding the IP block, while usually warnings are required before a block, there are exceptions, and I agree with you that one such exception is a string of bad-faith edits such as were made by the IP editor. I felt that particular case was borderline, and I hesitated between blocking and warning, and had just decided to go with a warning when you beat me to it with a block. I absolutely don't have any criticism of what you did, even though you made a different decision than me; it was a matter of judgement. My message about it was just because I was amused by the contrast between two incidents which came so close together, not because I wished to criticise what you did. (I also intended the emoticon I posted above to indicate that my comment was just a matter of expressing amusement rather than criticism.)
Well, if you've made it this far through that wall of text, I hope my remarks were of interest, or use, or maybe even both. I've also checked your user rights log before saving this message, and I see it's almost four months since your adminship, but a rather belated welcome to the admin corps anyway. JBW (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more comment. I've now looked at your RfA. 180:3 - pretty impressive! Puts me to shame: I got both far fewer supports and more opposes. JBW (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - for all the comments, in fact. I'm not sure at what point one is deemed to no longer be a 'newbie admin'. Tony Ballioni seemed to take about ten minutes; I'm working on an apprenticeship of at least five years! I certainly didn't feel bitten. Having a steer, or even a challenge to think carefully about how we impact on other editors, is never a bad thing, and I might just as equally have made the point you made to me had I seen someone else saying one thing, then seemingly doing precisely the opposite a moment later. And I appreciate your breakdown of how you were approaching it. Funnily enough, I feel I'm normally in your shoes: thinking about what warning to give, when along comes someone like MaterialScientist and hands out a huge block to some errant soul. As you know, we've recently had quite a few long-serving and otherwise admirable admins who've perhaps not considered the effects of their actions on others, with some ending up losing the bit. I don't think it does any harm to show the community that admins aren't some sort of all-powerful bully-elite, and can be subject to control. Whilst not advocating summary executions of admins for the odd mistake, it does no harm to show that we don't tolerate poor attitudes or behaviour from anyone.
The one thing I have decided I might on very rare occasions do (per WP:IAR, and I've discussed my rationale off-wiki with one of my RfA nominators) is to handout out an 'infinite' block to any IP doing really egregious behaviour (death threats/really nasty racist abuse etc), but then to return some days later to reduce it to a shorter block, more in accordance with our IP blocking guidelines. Whilst fully accepting we shouldn't hand out infinite blocks to IPs, the really heinous behaviour I've luckily only rarely seen here should, in my view, be met with more than a mildly deterring 'slap on the wrist' of a block of just a few days. So if you ever see me giving an infinite block to an IP, my intention will always be to come back and reduce it sometime afterwards; if I fail to do that, feel free to reduce or unblock them for me. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
Very interesting. There are quite a few things there that I very much agree with. One of them is the frustrating experience of putting some thought into deciding on a suitably friendly warning to give to an editor who has fallen foul of our guidelines, only to see another administrator just come along and slap a block on. Unfortunately, the system favours admins who choose to block over those who don't: if you and I simultaneously consider a report at AIV, and if you decide to post a warning, and I then decide to block, I am perfectly free to do so, effectively over-riding your decision, but you can't over-ride my decision without coming up against all the stuff in the policies on blocking and administrators about not reverting another admin's actions without consulting them, etc etc. The idea of handing out an apparently long IP block as a deterrent, but with the intention of coming back and shortening it when the culprit has had time to see the block, is one that I used to use fairly frequently many years ago, but I stopped doing it, because all too often I forgot to come back and unblock. (And yes, of course I can keep a note to remind me, but that's no use if I then don't check the reminder. It's one of the symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder, with which I am cursed.) JBW (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Growth team newsletter #13

Welcome to the thirteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Join the conversation: structured tasks

Sketch of an idea for a structured workflow for adding links to an article. The goal is to help newcomers edit at high volume.

We are looking for community input on a new project to make it easy for newcomers to make real article edits.

In our previous newsletter, we talked about the productive edits coming from the newcomer tasks feature. Those good results have continued: about 900 newcomers made over 5,000 suggested edits so far. We've learned that newcomers are interested in receiving suggested edits.

Now, we are thinking about how to supply them a feed of easy edits that will help more of them be successful quickly. We have a new idea called "structured tasks". This would aim to break down edits into steps that are easy for newcomers and easy on mobile devices.

In the past, certain kinds of editing tasks have been structured. For instance, adding categories through HotCat. Now, we are thinking about how to structure the editing of articles. The goal is to allow newcomers can make large content additions, especially from their mobile devices.

Please visit the project page and respond to the discussion questions listed on the talk page. You are welcome to show this project to others in your community. You can help by translating the materials to your language so that more voices can join in. We will be having this conversation until June 18.

Expanding to more wikis

We have expanded to six new wikis, and are looking for more interested communities.

In the last two months, we deployed Growth features to six new wikis: Ukrainian, Serbian, Hungarian, Armenian, and Basque Wikipedias, and French Wiktionary. Newcomers from these wikis have already contributed over 600 edits through Growth features.

We want to expand to more wikis in the coming months, and we are looking for interested communities. French Wikipedia already agreed and will be the next one to join the experiment. We will contact several other wikis in the coming weeks to offer them to participate.

Do you think the Growth Team features would be a good addition to your wiki? Please see this translatable summary of Growth features. You can share with your communities and start a discussion. Then, please contact us to begin the process!

Other updates

39 topics are now available for newcomer tasks

Work continues on improving newcomer tasks and the homepage.

  • In March, we deployed an upgrade to the topic matching in newcomer tasks. The current version offers 39 different topics using new ORES models.
  • In April, we completed an A/B test of two homepage configurations. We learned that more newcomers will attempt suggested edits if the module is made more prominent. We are implementing those learnings in our next test. See the full results here.
  • We are currently working on guidance for newcomer tasks. It will use the help panel to guide newcomers through completing easy edits.
  • Our next step is to create new configurations of the homepage. The goal is to encourage more newcomers to begin doing suggested edits.

As usual, we are still welcoming your feedback and questions about our features. Please contact us on the project talk page!

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-21

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • If you forget your password you can ask for a new one to be sent to your email address. You need to know your email address or your username. You can choose that you need to enter both your email address and your username. This is a preference. This is to get fewer password reset emails someone else asked for. This is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. [31][32]

Problems

Changes later this week

Future changes

  • Graphs will be rendered in the reader's browser. This will use Javascript. Graphs will hopefully work better for everyone who uses Javascript. It will not work for users who don't use Javascript. This will not affect diagrams in image files. [37]
  • Advanced item Some CSS for the skins has been simplified. This affects div#p-personal, div#p-navigation, div#p-interaction, div#p-tb, div#p-lang, div#p-namespaces, div#p-variants and div#footer. They will have to remove div. You will have to update your gadgets, scripts or user styles. This is so we can use HTML5. [38]
  • Advanced item Some CSS for the Vector skin has been changed. This affects #p-variants, #p-namespaces, #p-personal, #p-views and #p-cactions. They can no longer use > ul. You might need to update your gadgets, scripts or user styles. See how.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

One-and-one-half mountains

You will recall that about six months ago we had a discussion about Mount Venamo and Waukauyengtipu, which are either two names for one mountain in a remote equatorial rain forest in South America or two peaks of the same larger landform. The area is evidently one of the remaining parts of the Earth that is still poorly explored, those being mostly either in high latitudes or in low latitudes. The temperate zones are well-known. The argument isn't over. We are where we were six months ago. We probably should have one article that discusses the area and the controversy about it. We definitely should not have two articles that argue with each other. I declined Draft:Waukauyengtipu again. If the author disagrees, they can request discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me, Robert McClenon. I really feel for the editor on this one. I do start to wonder whether the information world might be better served if we did accept two separate articles, but on the understanding that they could be merged together. The Mount Venamo article is clearly saying that their is wrong synonymization, so this tilts us towards moving Draft:Waukauyengtipu into mainspace, whilst recognising that we don't want conflicting or duplicated content. Your current solution is a pragmatic one, so expanding Mount Venamo by adding a new section based on the content created by User:MatWr at Draft:Waukauyengtipu could by a sensible route to follow until there is an independent published research paper. I would certainly find this utterly frustrating as the explorer who had actually been there, and knows for a 'fact' that Wikipedia has got it wrong. But Wikipedia only ever follows independent, reliably-published sources, and is predisposed to ignore personal and business websites, no matter how professional the content. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)    [reply]
User:Nick Moyes - I think that you are saying that maybe we should temporarily accept the Waukauyengtipu draft, and tag them both to be merged, rather than having them argue with each other. That is probably the right answer. I will think about it and will answer further within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easy referencing for beginners

Easy Referencing for Beginners (Video)

Hello. I just wanted to let you know how impressed I was with your recent video, File:Easy Referencing for Beginners.webm. It's clear and couldn't be simpler. I know you added it on WP:ERB but I think you should replace the current video at Help:Referencing for beginners#RefToolbar and WP:INTREF3 with your video. The old one is bad quality and complicated - yours would be a much needed update. Hillelfrei talk 04:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback, Hillelfrei. It was rather done on the fly, and in only a few takes (but still sees me fluffing a few words and forgetting to prove that the citation link actually works at the end.) It was something I thought I might try out when answering at the Teahouse. However, I think others should decide on its wider usefulness, not me (especially as I don't like hearing my own voice). I'll ping @Sdkb and Moxy: so they can consider your suggestion. (I'm also happy to consider ways to improve it, but can't guarantee I can fix that straight away.) Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the ping (and woah I love hearing your accent)! Overall, I think the video is an improvement, so I'd support it if we're choosing between the two we have available. I like the overall enthusiasm and friendliness, the visual design is up to date, and you include the autofill tool, which is really important. That said, I think there could be some further improvements. Some thoughts:
  • 5 minutes seems a little long; if we're able to tighten it up, that might make people more likely to watch it. The instruction not to use Google's knowledge graph as a source could be mostly cut out, I think.
  • The audio quality is unfortunately not good. Recording in a closet and throwing a blanket over yourself (yes, actually) could help with that. (also speak close to the mic at a consistent distance, articulate as well as you can, etc.)
  • GorillaWarfare's video (link) explains (rather than just alludes to) how to re-use references, which I think is a little more helpful than how to add the reference section.
  • The text is hard to read since the video quality is necessarily a little compressed. Maybe zoom in or change the computer's text size setting?
  • Of the three screencasts in the Help:Intro series, this is the only one with a female narrator. I think it's important for new editors to see representation of active female Wikipedians, so ideally I'd prefer we don't end up with all three having a male narrator.
Videos are super hard to do well overall, so unless we get the WMF involved it won't be perfect, but they're nice to have as an option since some people prefer to learn that way. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks: I agree with all those points, except the one about video quality. Users have the option to select the best quality offered them, and the original WebM source on Commons is pretty good. Problem is - that's an issue for Wikimedia Commons to sort out, and I think the default format offered on file display is HD 720, which is not so clear as my original that's downloadable from Commons. I'm not even sure if all browsers support the Commons preferred format of WebM. Advice over there is as clear as mud, and finding good, non-technical information on Commons about displaying videos is almost as hard as spotting a vicar in a brothel! But at least my little play around might keep Interstellarity happy! (see here). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sure will. I remember you saying you are bad at making videos. I find that statement untrue. You have the potential to make good quality videos here. Stay safe, Interstellarity (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Nick Moyes. 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. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 08:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

teahouse photo addition

I am an android user and I have found the five links using desktop mode. Where is the link with small wiki. There are - File, File history, usage on commons, usage on other wikis and metadata. Where is the link with small wiki? Ppt2003 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to help?

Hello Nick. I've resumed editing today after a sustained absence (and after tonight, I will be absent again but only for a week or two). I've just been reading the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting article and in its history I spotted this revert of yours[39], and subsequent examination led me to a conversation between you and the editor who was blocked as a sockpuppet (I make no comment on the accuracy but have no affiliation to any other accounts myself), and here I noticed this comment you made[40].

In the months before I briefly left the project, I was involved in edit disputes and talk page debate over a similarly related binary matter at White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). If your above comment and the reverts of User:Fake News Extinguisher are correct, would you not say that the second paragraph of White Helmets is a clear breach of NPOV procedure? It brazenly asserts in the Wikipedia voice that all exposure of the Helmets as terrorists is a "conspiracy theory", is "disinformation", and the sources in question "falsely promote" certain things.

These claims carry the burden of proof, and it simply isn't adequate to argue that "ABC sources claim this is so and they are classed as reliable" while "XYZ sources say the opposite and they are unreliable" because in this scenario, it is a deadlock. To that end, continuously haemorrhaging "RS" actually begs the question rather than provides sound reasoning for the claims.

The impasse is by all accounts divided down the usual partisan lines, but I am more inclined to go along with the quality of one's arguments rather than "who" said it. That means I would rather rewrite the entire article and present the Helmets for what they are, associates of Al-Qaeda. However, I also know the purpose of Wikipedia and do not wish to do this. I simply believe that a more neutral passage needs to be written that gives parity to the rival narratives. A point to note is that when I last looked at the article in 2018, only three groupings were "spreading disinformation": Russian sources, Iranian sources, and Syrian government sources.

At some point in the last 18 months, somebody added a Chinese source to the "disinformation" bundle. The band of editors hell-bent on presenting the Helmets as the cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics have also objected in the most withering terms to add other writers/commentators from outside of the Russian/Iranian/Syrian/Chinese circle being adduced as sources. I refer to persons such as George Galloway, Eva Bartlett and former Pink Floyd bassist Roger Waters, a man whose notability stretches to political activism (thereby deeming irrelevant his status as a musician). Can you see where this is going? I personally know of two more national news sources that expose the Helmets as terrorist-affiliated, and I am sure there is much much more, but in the current paradigm those sources would just be added to the "disinformation" bundle for no other reason than that is the side they are on, and all just to accommodate the other side's WP:TRUTH.

Could I ask you, if you haven't been involved in the past, to provide your own input on the article and/or the talk? I'd appreciate that a lot. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldtrack: Goodness... I will try and take a look when I have some clear headspace, though this isn't my area of expertise. (Forgive me for adding paragraph breaks to your post - I just needed to see and digest it in bite-sized chunks.) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By all means this is your talk page! :)))) No rush. I don't expect to be online this next 10 or so days anyhow. Thanks for the acknowledgement! Warmest regards. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I spent an hour and a half looking into this. Sorry i couldn't do more. It seems the main disagreement is that you like the word 'criticism' whilst others want to use the phrase 'sustained disinformation', and that you've been edit warring with others a bit over that - maybe for a couple of years - but also noting that there has been prior discussion on the Talk Page, plus a recent post from you, reiterating your concerns. Unfortunately, unlike the diff of mine that you cited to the page on [[Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting]], here I see a statement in the lead which does summarises what reliable mainstream media like The Guardian have reported, and which are expnded in the remainder of the article. Having looked at those sources, I tend to side with the view which is opposite to the one that you take - sorry. In fact, I have added a quotation from the The Guardian which I feel justifies the use of both 'sustained' and of 'disinformation', and the assertion that Russian TV has played its part in that campaign. Whilst I haven't added in references in my reply here, I would suggest that you consider always including both diffs and citations when you want to put forward an argument to support your view - it makes the job a lot easier if one can hear what the editor is saying, and then immediately see the source(s) they are basing their editing position upon. Just a suggestion to facilitate collaboration. Sorry I can't be more supportive of your perspective, but I must admit to very little experience in this field and have simply followed the sources. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard - May 2020

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the May 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard.

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading & stay safe! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • The visual editor will now work in the Modern skin. The changes that needed to happen for this to work could cause problems for some scripts or gadgets. [41]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from May 26. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from May 27. It will be on all wikis from May 28 (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

David Pearson (librarian)

Hi Nick. Would you mind taking a look at this? Someone stating they are Pearson has been "updating" the article occasionally over the years, almost certainly in good faith, and for the most part what they've added looks more like general updates than a major attempt at WP:PROMOTION. These changes probably went unnoticed since the article is probably not one that is highly watched, so this person might be a bit surprised with the attention they have suddenly attracted. They recently ran into a bit of difficultly trying to add an image (see User talk:Explicit#David Pearson image) which is where I came across the article. I've tried to explain WP:COI to this editor on his user talk page and was wondering if you might have any other other suggestions. This person already seems a bit flummoxed by things Wikipedia and I might've made them more confused. Perhaps as someone who has declared a COI for certain subjects and as an admin, you might be able to clarify some things about COI editing better (and more succinctly) than I did. Of course, any of your talk page watchers are also welcome to chime in if they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: OK, will do. But I must go and get a coffee first! I'm surprised you've struggled - you're usually brilliant at communication. I do seriously hope you'll think about standing at an RfA one day soon. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Right, I've taken a look now, and drunk my coffee. I don't think I should add anything more as they would probably feel a bit overwhelmed by a second, unknown person weighing in. You could possibly go back and break up a few of the paragraphs into smaller, discrete chunks, but that's about all I can suggest. So, wait a while and see how they respond. If they're still confused, you could offer to bring me in as a friendly, retired museum curator who also just happens to be an admin. But I don't think you need me. The one thing you could either suggest they do - or offer to do it for them - is to help by putting this {{UserboxCOI|1=David Pearson (librarian)}} on their userpage for them. You could also ask if they could give you the full details of reference (especially page number) for their entry in Who's Who (if that was actually what it was, and not just a mention of the Bibliographic Society). I must admit to wondering about this page meeting our notability criteria - it probably all hinges on the Who's Who entry. Let me know if you need me to drop in. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
Thank you for taking a look. I'm also not too sure about the subject's notability, but I felt that directly pointing this out might be taken the wrong way and cause the discussion to spiral out of control. Telling someone who has a Wikipedia article written about them that they might not be "notable" (even if you try to politely explain you mean Wikipedia notability) often seems to put them on the defensive, especially if the article has existed for some time. I'm not saying such an article should be kept just to avoid possibly hurting its subject's feelings, but felt it would be quite the bombshell to suddenly drop upon him at the moment. Besides, there might be some WP:SNG which is being met. Anyway, he's yet to respond to my post so perhaps he's reviewing things at the moment and will decide to use the article talk page from now on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI closure

re this: Violence? I think not. If so, I would concur that our familiar "trouting" is a form of virtual physical violence and that too should be called out. That's used on a daily basis around here in the name of "humour", which we seem to be losing very rapidly. May be if I'd have accompanied my "metaphorical clip round the ear" with a comedic picture, it would've been ok? Un flipping believable. CassiantoTalk 13:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, my friend. Sorry if my humour seemed misplaced to you. I did say "acts of metaphorical physical violence are inappropriate unless approved 6 months in advance by WMF." I'm not sure which part of that you could take seriously. But on another note: you do realise that it was not the IP that posted the report at ANI, aren't you? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Irony is lost in a textual format, I apologise. Was it not? I thought the first post was by the IP, no? CassiantoTalk 13:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, tnx. Nope, it was Serial# who moved the post over to ANI from the Teahouse where the IP placed it. I think they were simply expressing frustration to us there, so I did feel sorry for them, suddenly finding themselves under the ANI spotlight, accused of all sorts, like timewasting and S#'s regular insinuations of sockpuppetry. I think the IP deported themself well, under the circumstances. (I should add that I do take Wikipedia extremely seriously, but I do also try when I can to lighten the mood. Hence my pictorial response at the Teahouse to Serial#'s announcement that he was reporting himself at ANI. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=958747180&diffmode=source see here)). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally tend to take a very hard-line approach to the humor disclosure requirement for reasons like this, but I'm not sure how widely my view is shared. Templates like {{Jokes}} are always good to have in one's toolbox. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Humour works best when you don't need to explain that it is humour, yet at the same time it communicates a point in a gentle manner whilst also being pretty apparent that it is indeed humour. It's when you have to explain, flag, template, delete or apologise for it that you know you've messed up somewhere along the line. I wasn't expecting to have to explain this one, to be honest.

User:Rock Solid Talwnt Entertainment

You may want to leave a message for User:Rock Solid Talwnt Entertainment stating why they were blocked. Also, your talk page is getting quite long. Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - message left. Thanks - I do like a long talk page covering some months, but something has definitely blocked archiving. Will sort later. Ta. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi! So On the Test Wikipedia, I used rollback to revert an lta's edit, they added the word "test" on every page they vandalise, My reason for using rollback is that it's a bad-faith edit, and an LTA edit. I wanted to know if this is valid use of rollback (since I used it twice) before proceeding. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've only recently visited test.wikipedia, so know little about it. But I see no reason why you shouldn't use rollback to revert vandalism (as you did here). I note the Ip has since been blocked. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not against policy to do so right? Last thing I want to do is get blocked and have rollback removed --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Hey your archive is set at 2000 days not sure if you meant to do that or not. But we can add some greenery to make the long walk more pleasant and maybe a couple sled dogs ;) Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 08:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Because he is God and has infinite life :) --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 15:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Galendalia: LOL both ! I've just been looking at my archive settings. The 2000 figure is hours, not days - explanation at User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis. My intention had always been to retain three months worth of past discussions, so I've just upped it slightly from the 83 days it was previously set to, and also enlarged the archive size a little bit too (from 65,000 bytes to 100,000 bytes). Thanks for taking a look, though. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt Me

Hey Nick,

Can you add me next up on your adoption list if you are willing to please? As you’ve seen I need the help and I have respect for you.

Thanks, Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 08:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Galendalia: I'd be happy to help and support you if I can (assuming you're still interested.) It would be on an informal piecemeal manner, with you approaching me with a range of questions, or seeking guidance and advice as needed, rather than me offering you a structured training programme. How does that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: works for me bud. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 22:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question re section

hi. I wanted to ask would it be okay if I could please reformat my signature, in the talk page section above? I don't mind the section being here, obviously, but I don't want everyone's eye to be immediately drawn to my own signature. I would simply remove the bold font and the emoji, just to make it more subtle. don't worry, I would do a draft in my own user space first, so that I could revise it in one edit, and not make multiple edits. I hope that's ok? I appreciate it. please ping me when you reply. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -that's OK with me. I appreciate you having the courtesy to ask. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For the many instances of extended patience I have noticed you giving new users, and very frequent instances of level-headedness all around. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, thank you, kind Sir!
  • Why, thank you, kind Lady!
(delete as appropriate). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam

Dear Sir, Thank you very much for editing this article, sparing more time and giving suggestions. In fact I am new to this, and this is my first article. As you guessed, your are right sir. I am the founder member of Dolphin Nature Conservation Society and Biodiversity Park which started in the year 2001 with a aim to inculcate the knowledge of nature conservation and environmental protection in the young minds. The main motto of the society is nature conservation,environmental protection, education and awareness. Ours is a student teacher based voluntary organization (NGO). I am a retired Professor from Andhra University affiliated college, A doctorate degree holder from Marine Biology. Zoologist and teacher by profession and a botanist by passion and above all a naturalist and nature lover. The crown project of ours is development and maintenance of this Biodiversity Park in Visakhapatnam. In a Govt. Hospital land in 3 acres we started this in 2002 and maintained with our own funds (my own funds and meagre donations from students) upto 2013. Now with the help of government agencies and with my own funds and through meager donations from student volunteers we have been maintaining it. In fact it is a living laboratory for students of all walks of life. In fact ours is the only biodiversity park in the entire state of Andhra Pradesh. Thank you very much for all your suggestions. I am much more thankful to you for the creation of Biodiversity park, visakhapatnam in Wikimedia. I am entirely new to this terminology and language of wikipedia but slowly learning . I earnestly request you to edit this article and give suggestions and advise...and make it in more presentation and pleasant form..for the wiki readers. Already you helped me a lot. Pl. extend some more help by sparing your highly valuable time in making this article a perfect page for all readers. Thank you..Thank you very much.. regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmantha (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmantha: It was a pleasure to help you, sir! I realise you might not have been happy to see much of your work removed, but I am very glad you appreciated it. Please would you just do one important thing to meet Wikipedia's requirements? I need to ask you to create your userpage and to add a small 'Conflict of Interest' declaration on it. (See WP:COI for more details. The code you need to add is as follows: {{UserboxCOI|1=Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam}} and on your userpage it should appear like this:
This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam.

What you actually say about yourself is very much your choice, but I personally tend to trust an editor's motives more if I see that they have spent a few moments explaining their background and why they are here to edit Wikipedia. What you have said above looks perfect to me; namely "I am a retired Professor from Andhra University affiliated college, A doctorate degree holder from Marine Biology. Zoologist and teacher by profession and a botanist by passion and above all a naturalist and nature lover."

If I may make a personal observation: If I were in your shoes, I would also be extraordinarily proud of my achievements in setting up the Biodiversity Park. From the photographs I can see that it is full or beauty and has enormous impact on the people you bring there. For such a small area, you have not only created a great resource, but also managed to generate a lot of media interest, too. You did a brilliant job. I am, if I am honest, quite jealous! My own project (The Sanctuary (Derby)) is 12 ha in size, but has nothing of the beauty of yours. In fact, it was established to protect natural wildlife and especially ground-nesting bird habitat that had developed on top of a disused and clay-capped landfill rubbish dump on the edge of our city. In winter it looks bleak and windswept, but in spring it attracts migrant birds. We even built a massive sand-filled structure for nesting sand martins, which has been very successful. Some years ago we had to fight to protect it from destruction by its owners (our City Council) who were the same body who had formally and legally designated it as a Local Nature Reserve. They wanted to build a bicycle racing track on it, and so our local conservation organisations had to start legal action in one of our countries highest courts before they finally backed down. I hope you never face the same problems! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a new beta version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It has a new zoom function when you look at images. It can also suggest places when you upload geotagged photos. [42]

Problems

  • There was a problem with the Commons database on 27 May. Commons could not be edited for eight minutes. Because of this problem the database was moved. This caused another short read-only time on 29 May. [43][44][45]
  • The Vector skin had a problem where you couldn't add links to the article in other languages. You couldn't see the section if there were no links to other languages already. It also removed content translation links and links to language settings. This has now been fixed. [46]

Changes later this week

  • You can get a notification when someone links to a page you created. You can turn these notifications off for individual pages. You can soon turn them off also in the notifications you get. [47]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 June. It will be on all wikis from 4 June (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Tea House

Hi Nick, I got a message from you to join the teahouse, this was quite a few months ago... sorry I'm late for tea... thank you so much for offering to help me. I just created the first article about a Chilean sculptor. I hope to contribute more articles on Hispanic women.--Pworren (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Moyes&oldid=960328994"