User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 80
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Lead no references??? St. Augustine article
You mention that the lead does not need references, I beg you pardon? You show me a link to where they explain how the lead should be written and it clearly states: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." A lead HAS to be sourced! I know that often it is not done, but this is wrong! If you check more science-related topic, you will see that in the lead references are also given. Furthermore the sources I gave are easy accessible (contrary to almost all the other references that can only be checked if you buy a copy of the book). Secondly: the part about the abbey and the cross is relevant as there is no clear connection to those in the article despite your claim about the cross.Garnhami (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- this belongs on the article talk page. Take it there. And you should really learn a bit more about polite editing, thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed: you were right, I overlooked the part of the cross. Secondly: show me where it is stated that in the lead no references should be given? There is NO rule that states this. I know that often it is not done, but it is wrong. And lastly, but most important: almost no references (already given) are accessible. There is no point in only adding books as a source, nobody can check these. And I also do not see why this can not be discussed here.Garnhami (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- discussions about article content belong on the talk page of the article so that other editors can see it and take part. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I will remember it for next time. However, please do not just undo changes without checking them. At the page List_of_Archbishops_of_Canterbury I added the reference as an external link, I really do not see the problem with that. It is NOT placed at the same place where it was before. You were right it was badly placed, but I was not sure where to put it. Now it should be in a good location.Garnhami (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- discussions about article content belong on the talk page of the article so that other editors can see it and take part. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed: you were right, I overlooked the part of the cross. Secondly: show me where it is stated that in the lead no references should be given? There is NO rule that states this. I know that often it is not done, but it is wrong. And lastly, but most important: almost no references (already given) are accessible. There is no point in only adding books as a source, nobody can check these. And I also do not see why this can not be discussed here.Garnhami (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Meschin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Meschin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
Thank you
Thank you for completing the GA review of Jinan incident. I appreciate it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Clement of Llanthony
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clement of Llanthony you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Meschin
The article William Meschin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Meschin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Richard Scrob
On 8 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Scrob, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Richard Scrob built Richard's Castle, one of the few castles in England built before the Norman conquest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Scrob. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Scrob), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Master source reviewer
Still catching up, so I just saw your source review at the Holocaust article; what an impressive amount of work. This is why I screamed every time the idea of you being named delegate came up; you do source reviews so well that I always felt we could not afford to lose you-- that FAC would be meaningless without the quality of source reviews you do. Take care with the coming storm, and don't break your back shoveling that snow! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't shovel much - that's what we have a tractor for. Basically just enough to get out the doors. This is also why we have a Standard Poodle - he's big enough to go out in normal amounts of snow without risking frostbite on parts of his anatomy that shouldn't be frostbit! I shall enjoy the big fluffy flakes falling tomorrow while the herd eats on their new hay bale and I don't have to go out! Maybe I'll even post a pic here... Wisconsin with snow is gorgeous. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Gerard (archbishop of York) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Gerard (archbishop of York) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 8, 2020. I think you are doing the blurb for this. I've not put in an image, I don't know if you have any ideas? Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
FAC brawls
@FAC coordinators: I have been traveling for a week, and was barely keeping up. I logged on today and started with those blooming pingie-thingies first, to find myself mentioned at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Scholastica Day riot/archive1, which I have not reviewed. The previous Ealdgyth advice isn't being followed.
- User:Tim riley personalized the FAC with "I am, to my considerable regret, beginning to have the feeling that Fowler&fowler has for some reason got it in for SchroCat and is raising frivolous and unhelpful objections that nobody else has the least sympathy with."
- User:Fowler&fowler mentions me and the earlier caution from Ealdgyth as his reason for engaging.
- User:SchroCat responds with "Actually, keep it: I'll fuck off and you can continue to be the self-appointed attack puppy of a former co-ord"
Ealdgyth's sage advice about behavior on FACs doesn't seem to have sunk in. OttavaRima and F&f used to regularly hold cagematches on my talk page (which I did my best to ignore, as I believe strongly that we should never silence critique at FAC, but we also don't need to engage and personalize when we disagree with a reviewer). SchroCat and Tim riley need to heed Ealdgyth's advice about how to deal with commentary on FACs they disagree with. Fowler & fowler might consider using their prose and sourcing skills at the FACs of other nominators. I don't appreciate being labeled anyone's "attack puppy". Hopefully we are all only interested in upholding FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- You need to read before jumping to conclusions. I have not called you anything except “ a former co-ord“, which, I think is uncontroversial and correct. As to the rest, I couldn’t care less. After three second rate reviews from that idiot playing games of “Gotcha!” and trying to force the failure of entirely compliant articles, my enthusiasm for FAC has evaporated. That fowl pest has won. Congratulations to him. As I’ve said in my withdrawal request, I won’t be back at FAC for a long while, if at all. Don’t ping me again to this topic please - I no longer have any interest. Oh, and if you are going to try to use diffs to show things, please do so honestly: I did not respond to that comment, I was responding to him interrupting a comment I made to Ealdgyth. You could also have reported that I removed the comment shortly afterwards. I still mean the sentiment behind it tho. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw all of that (re the way you referenced me); I only intended a brief summary, not an inquisition. Enthusiasm waxes and wanes; it is always helpful to learn to handle as dispassionately as you can reviews that you disagree with. That is far better than the alternative, which is to stifle review at FAC. Trust the Coords to handle it, follow Ealdgyth's advice, to help prevent burnout! There have always been and always will be FAC brawls; if you can all avoid personalizing, they are a healthy part of the process. Sorry to see how this has affected you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- But the coords didn't handle it, Sandy Georgia. Instead, a wall of text went out blaming everyone. That is not solving the issue, merely nurturing it. We have criteria for a reason, and F&f's oppose on Humphrys was to do with his own personal preference, and not the criteria. Why bother to have criteria at all if it's going to be a free-for-all? CassiantoTalk 18:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I still believe it behooves nominators to handle reviews they disagree with in the way Ealdgyth suggested; there will always be reviews one disagrees with, and at historical points, they were much more problematic than what we see today! And the reason I weigh in is because I so strongly believe we should never stifle criticism at FAC (just learn to ignore it when appropriate). The alternative, of stifling review, to me is much worse ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- So you'll agree then that stifling debate is also much worse than being told not to discuss other editors? We are allowed to disagree with each other and we are allowed to say so. I agree; FAC should be rigorous, the more rigorous the better, but only based on the criteria. Not based on someone's aspirational wish list. CassiantoTalk 18:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think discussing contributors, rather than content, on the FAC will usually derail the FAC, so that discussion should be held elsewhere when needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. But of course, you then run the risk of onlookers at the new forum, who don't normally go to FAC, issue civility notices and say phrases like "discuss content, not contributors". CassiantoTalk 19:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think discussing contributors, rather than content, on the FAC will usually derail the FAC, so that discussion should be held elsewhere when needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- So you'll agree then that stifling debate is also much worse than being told not to discuss other editors? We are allowed to disagree with each other and we are allowed to say so. I agree; FAC should be rigorous, the more rigorous the better, but only based on the criteria. Not based on someone's aspirational wish list. CassiantoTalk 18:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I still believe it behooves nominators to handle reviews they disagree with in the way Ealdgyth suggested; there will always be reviews one disagrees with, and at historical points, they were much more problematic than what we see today! And the reason I weigh in is because I so strongly believe we should never stifle criticism at FAC (just learn to ignore it when appropriate). The alternative, of stifling review, to me is much worse ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- But the coords didn't handle it, Sandy Georgia. Instead, a wall of text went out blaming everyone. That is not solving the issue, merely nurturing it. We have criteria for a reason, and F&f's oppose on Humphrys was to do with his own personal preference, and not the criteria. Why bother to have criteria at all if it's going to be a free-for-all? CassiantoTalk 18:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw all of that (re the way you referenced me); I only intended a brief summary, not an inquisition. Enthusiasm waxes and wanes; it is always helpful to learn to handle as dispassionately as you can reviews that you disagree with. That is far better than the alternative, which is to stifle review at FAC. Trust the Coords to handle it, follow Ealdgyth's advice, to help prevent burnout! There have always been and always will be FAC brawls; if you can all avoid personalizing, they are a healthy part of the process. Sorry to see how this has affected you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm very fond of all the participants here, and can see the frustration on both sides. How about this...one oppose shouldn't sway a FAC if the consensus leans towards promotion. By which I mean...if you disagree with a comment...fine, sate the reason and leave it at that. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yep :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, also. CassiantoTalk 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't like being the bearer of bad news, but it seems like the riot FAC is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#What has FAC become?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I started it, not knowing if this thread of course, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Surplus to requirements, now. CassiantoTalk 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think you started that one as I was writing this one, so our ships crossed in the night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have replied at the other discussion, to Johnbod. In agreement or disagreement, I have found both SandyGeorgia and Ealdgyth to be editors of integrity, experience, and intelligence, unafraid to speak their minds. I doubt they would want, much less need, an attack dog. As for dogs, I identify only with the landraces, many among whom our family has rescued, had treated, and sadly buried in distant lands. They are not the attacking kind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think you started that one as I was writing this one, so our ships crossed in the night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I started it, not knowing if this thread of course, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Surplus to requirements, now. CassiantoTalk 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ceoil has probably the most sage remarks on the topic on WT:FAC, regarding coords not being parents nor here to referee ego clashes. I don't want to see anyone put off the process unless they're genuinely trolling, and I don't think I've ever seen that in all my years of involvement. If that's the case I'd rather see the community deal with it than have to tsk tsk grown adults until they storm off. We as a community need to be focused on impact and outcomes, not utilization. The word "disruption" is funny. In business circles being disruptive is often seen as a positive... challenging norms and complacency. --Laser brain (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Meschin
The article William Meschin you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:William Meschin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Osbern fitzRichard
On 11 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Osbern fitzRichard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Osbern fitzRichard is considered an English feudal baron because he held Richard's Castle as tenant-in-chief in 1086? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Osbern fitzRichard. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Osbern fitzRichard), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
--valereee (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The Outsiders (American Band)
BTW: I LOVE LOTR!! Read the books at least 7 times. Did you like the Jackson movies?
I’m sort of novice on this subject but I love 60’s groups and try to research them as well as the musicians involved in these groups who forged their way to R&R. I met a guy who played in the Outsiders (actually he was the original drummer of the Starfires which was the roots of the Outsiders) Can you take a look a couple things? I wrote them on the talk page of that page. What does one do when they find an issue on a page?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outsiders_(American_band)
One....Legacy. A new version of the band is calling themselves The Outsiders and pretty sure they wrote the last paragraph. I think one of the many drummers who were with them in The 60’s during their hey day. I think it should be reworded and in another section i.e “Other Versions, lines ups etc.....”
Two....”years active” currently wrote 1965-2019. The core group signed with Capitol records band disbanded 1970. Was it ok for me to change that date or did I vandalize? I’m trying to keep the integrity intact to pay homage to the original band. I mean, if someone owned the trademark for the Beatles and all went around calling themselves by that name without an original Beatle....well you get the gist
Three: when I originally fell into this page “Howard Blank” was listed as a former member but someone recently removed his name.... coincidentally at the same time the author penned the last paragraph of the article about the newly formed Outsiders. Self promoting I presume. I deferred his name and citations to The Starfires since he was not in the Outsiders when the name was changed. Any input would be appreciated if you have the time! Bebfire (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Lunar Crater volcanic field/GA1
Checking in to see if there are outstanding problems. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing beyond me being sick. Better today, hoping to tackle wiki stuff tomorrow (RL stuffs come first, obviously...) --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Clement of Llanthony
The article Clement of Llanthony you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clement of Llanthony for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
FA advance
Hi, I'm planning a daily podcast which would rely heavily on Wikipedia FAs. Would it be possible to get advance knowledge of the FAs beyond one month? I ask because of the time needed to write the podcast, record, edit, and publish the audio. Since they'd be daily, I'd ideally want to do them in bulk. Having them in advance would be very useful. ThanksParacaido (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- See my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, 
Enwebb, 
Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
.svg){kind=small}
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
Technical news
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
What do you make of this? Some of it is fine, but much of it is just adding pictures and unreferenced content, including a bunch of categories and interwikilinks (which make me think it was copied and pasted from somewhere). It's too late for me to have a closer look but maybe you have some immediate thoughts. Thanks... Drmies (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:Campaignbox Norman Conquest
Template:Campaignbox Norman Conquest has been nominated for merging with Template:Campaignbox Norse invasions of England. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
FA Nominations
Could I please nominate a second article for FA? My first nomination has been open for some time and now has a decent amount of resolved concerns. NoahTalk 15:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let you know that Ian Rose gave me permission to nominate another. Sorry about making your job more difficult.. the nominations page was already swamped. NoahTalk 14:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I totally spaced this. We've been busy as hell and it just ... fell off my radar. Apologies. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that... I dont think I have ever seen this many nominations at FAC. It is over 50 now! Holy cow! NoahTalk 14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I totally spaced this. We've been busy as hell and it just ... fell off my radar. Apologies. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
2020
That's quite a year you're having; hope you have gotten some sleep, and dear hubby mends quickly. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah. Can't say I'm upset that he's not out on the road during a pandemic, but I could have wished for a slightly less damaging way to accomplish it! Ortho doc apt. tomorrow at 1:30, which will tell us more. I have an eye apt. at 9am that morning too... hopefully the medical system here in central Wisconsin holds together long enough for me to get both those done and new glasses ordered. Hubby needs a permanent cast too, he's just got temp splints which are ... difficult. Thursday should hopefully see the end of stuff for a while so we can bunker down. Food and supplies are mostly gotten ... just need some more grain and hay, but there's no way we can totally supply ourselves with that and store it for longer than two weeks... we just don't have the space to store more than a two week supply of grain. Luckily, we're in the midst of a whole pile of dairy farms so the government can't really expect the farms and stuff to not move around some...--Ealdgyth (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- We are fully prepared and hunkered down-- have been for a week. I am seriously irritated at the indifference shown by many of our younger friends. Stay well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth - If you need to order new glasses, you can still order them through Warby Parker, either online or through their customer service #. Their stores are all closed so you won't be able to get them adjusted in-person until whenever the various shelter-in-place orders are lifted. But anyway, you can at least get the new glasses.
- Sorry to hear about your hubs; recent ortho issues. Stay safe and stay well everybuddy...let's all be Superheroes and Stay Home. Shearonink (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I need an eye exam first - the old glasses are three years old... and no, did not get to see the eye doc ... it got canceled that morning. On the plus side - hubby is healing decently and is now helping the offspring install a digital TV antenna on the roof ... so we can get local news. We never bothered to get cable or anything when we moved in last summer... --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- We are fully prepared and hunkered down-- have been for a week. I am seriously irritated at the indifference shown by many of our younger friends. Stay well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Question about TFA
So, I was going to start the process of nominating Bath School disaster for the May 18 TFA this year but have just realized that it appeared on the Main Page...in 2006 - but since then it lost its FA status (2010) and then was brought back this month. Anyway, I was wondering if it is possible that Bath School disaster could even appear as a TFA (even though a previous version had already appeared as a TFA). I was going to place the article on WP:TFAP but didn't want to waste anyone's time if it's a no-go. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- We can rerun TFAs now, so my advice is to put it up at the requests page and see what others think. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh? I learn new things around here every day. Thanks - will do. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Shearonink, try to explain why you think it is a valuable and worthy re-run. This recent request for a re-run may help: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Introduction to viruses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh? I learn new things around here every day. Thanks - will do. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 31 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
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
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.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
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.