User talk:Julia W

If you leave a message for me here, I will probably respond here, to keep conversations together. If you express a preference, though, I would be happy to respond on your talk page instead.
If I've left you a message, I will be watching your talk page and expecting you to respond there.
Click on this link to leave me a new message.

Archives
July 2008–December 2008 * January 2009–June 2009 * July 2009–December 2009 * January 2010–June 2010 * July 2010–December 2010
January–December 2011 * January–December 2012 * January 2013–December 2015

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Julie,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on January 29, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-01-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Julia,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Birdy-2450.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on May 15, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-05-15. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Julia W. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Julia W.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival

Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page

Hello Julia W.
I am somewhat confused about what happened there, because one post there was attributed to me that I did not write.
I cannot remember what the IP address was, and its visibility was deleted to non-admins (like myself). If I understand, a possibly inadvertently logged-out user wrote their messages (I remember there were actually two distinct messages in that single post, revision 783713007). What I then did was to sign the two posts (also in one single post) to make it clear that these were new insertions, substituting the {{unsigned ip}} template (with the IP address and time as parameters, revision 783719336, with my edit summary "sign").
Then because of the deletions I cannot track what exactly happened. Is it possible that the possibly-logged-out user requested revdel of their IP address, but that you erroneously replaced the IP signature I added with my own username just before that? Otherwise, was there an attempt by another user to impersonate me in one/some of those deleted posts? Thank you for your time, —PaleoNeonate - 22:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm really sorry, this is totally my mistake. No one was trying to impersonate you. A request for the IP address to be hidden came in from someone who didn't state a user name, and as you'd followed along shortly afterwards to sign I figured it was you!

The history looks a bit of a mess, but I think it might be sorted now? Hey, at least I did manage to nuke the IP address. :P My apologies! Julia\^talk 08:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I made one additional change. Sorry for the mix-up. Julia\^talk 08:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This explains it all and was what I hoped, thank you very much for confirming. This now makes me wonder how come a very recent SPA knows about oversight and is so careful as to request it, but AGF to the rescue, the editor has at least accepted to start discussing; another editor also already started a thread at the NPOV noticeboard about the recent events, so we'll see how that turns out. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate - 08:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Table formatting of bird list

Hi Julia, I am assuming that you are going to return to List of birds of India - while the new formatting looks nice, I think it is going to take some effort to maintain it especially as many people make regular additions there and it gets worse when reorganizations are needed with ongoing taxonomic changes! Shyamal (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shyamal! Yes, I will return to it, in bits and pieces as I find time. I understand your objection to the tables — I understand because I notice from your contributions that you are not using visual editor. In wikitext tables are a nightmare. For taxonomy updates, it's so hard to find that one species you're looking for in the middle of all the table markup, and there's all the table markup to fiddle with if you want to insert a species.

I encourage you to check out how tables work in visual editor, perhaps on List of birds of South Africa where tables are used for the whole list. I hope you'll find (as I do) that they are about as easy as maintaining straightforward bulleted text lists. As a long-term editor I was opposed to visual editor at first. I scoffed at the idea that it was "easier", or that we needed something WYSIWYG. But I suppose as life has gotten busier and my time for Wikipedia has dwindled, I appreciate more than anything how it saves time and effort, for referencing and for tables. It's a useful tool! Julia\^talk 09:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can only echo Julia's comments. I, too, as opposed to the VE for a long time but it has really improved in the last years. I look back with bemusement to the days when I created references from scratch and editing tables has become so much easier now. It's still not perfect and you will need to switch to source editing from time to time but giving it a chance when you would otherwise have to tediously edit wikicode manually is not a bad idea. Regards SoWhy 10:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the visual editor has improved but can we keep the third column of the table as "comments" rather than "status" because sometimes a species entry needs a commentary on taxonomic history and other matters. Shyamal (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Makes sense! Julia\^talk 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Rociletinib shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)