User talk:Maile66

View Maile's content creations → Enter Here

View Maile's content review processes → Enter Here

USER Maile Maile TALK Maile KUDOS VPump New pages AfD debates AfD Stats XToolsPages GUC Special:LinkSearch Quarry

Please post new message Subject in this box, and click New Section button

WP:NRHPHELP link and info clean up

Doncram Re: WP:NRHPHELP See how I cleaned up the Alabama listing. If you have no objections, over time, I'll clean up states one by one. I think we are in an age when readers want to scroll down and eyeball what's there, reading as little as possible when they scroll. On a Google or Bing search, I really didn't immediately see a lot that led me anywhere on Alabama. But, boy oh boy, when I looked at the ALA Alabama state databases, it was a wonderful surprise of informational link. Every state is different; ALA can only list what the state provides. I've previously searched through midwest/east coast states and came up dry. I certainly didn't expect Alabama to be such a bonanza, but Hooray! for Alabama. Under History, People and Culture in the ALA link, they have hardbound newspapers, image digital collections. Wonderful. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Block IP of banned user

Hello, thanks for blocking ths user I reported earler today! I see, though, that they now have and indefinite block for sockpuppetry et al., so I just wanted to ask if his IP address, Special:Contributions/205.215.14.52 (which is only blocked until later today), should receive the same treatment? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 13:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's ask Alexf who did the original block. We don't generally give an indefinite block to an IP, because many are dynamic (shared) IPs that expire for the individual user after a couple of days. I think we'd need more than a few edits to know if this IP was assigned to a specific computer. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

IPs are not blocked indefinitely. They are usually shared and even when they may not be, they are dynamic, with ISPs rotating them every so often, so you would never know. IP blocks increase in length with frequency. Should they try again they will get a longer and longer block every time and so on. -Keep an eye on them and report to AIV if warranted. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

Hi, I'm a bit concerned about your implementation of full protection on this article for three reasons:

• First, and most importantly, you are WP:INVOLVED here given that you developed the article to FA standard, and have been editing the article recently to remove the content for which you've imposed the protection. As the edits aren't vandalism or similar, you should not be using the admin tools here. This is the kind of thing which can get admins de-syoped, and I'd strongly encourage you to remove the protection ASAP, and lodge a request through WP:RFPP for another admin to consider. But I don't think it's likely that they would action it.
• Secondly, if only a single editor is disrupting the article the general principle is that the admin response should focus on them, and not other editors - eg, through a formal warning or a block depending on the severity. However, given that you are involved here, a block would be a terrible idea, and would likely lead to you losing the admin tools.
• Thirdly, as there is no edit warring, there is no reason to impose protection of any duration here, and especially not the rather drastic step of full protection for indefinite duration (something usually imposed only as a last resort).

As noted above, I'd strongly encourage you to reverse this action as soon as you read this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I came here with similar concerns but a different angle. You shouldn't really be protecting articles you've written. Admins are just like everyone else when we work in the mainspace and we must avoid the impression that we get a veto or a supervote on content issues just because we're admins. The best thing to do is to approach another admin and ask them for help or to take the issue to a noticeboard. And on that note, I saw your post at WT:MILHIST and decided to investigate as an uninvovled admin. Given the history here, I've blocked YahwehSaves for a fortnight. I see this is not the first time they've been blocked for that sort of conduct on that article, so it might be worth pursuing a topic ban. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to say, I've reverted your protection back to semi since, with the block, full protection should be unnecessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D and HJ Mitchell: Thanks to both of you for your advice, and your action. Yes, this editor is habitual on this article (and chosen other articles, that include the field of baseball). It predates my involvement by years. The editor's pattern is to dismantle an article and rewrite it according to what they want it to say. After much edit warring back and forth, they lay off a given article for several months or years, and then return and do it again. Based on unrelated editors I see crop up at AIV, this seems to a type of vandalism that is perpetuated on various topics by several repeat vandals. Yes, I've been thinking of pursuing a topic ban. — Maile (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I used to do a lot of arbitration enforcement and I saw a lot of this kind of thing in some of the major hot topics like the Arab-Israeli dispute. In my experience, the best way to get decisive action on something like this is to bring it to someone's attention as soon as it happens and then raise it every time it happens. In this case, I'm just an admin who spotted a problem and acted to deal with the immediate issue and a longer block would be less likely to survive scrutiny if it was appealed. But if the disruption resumes after the block, it becomes easier to justify a (potentially much) longer block on the grounds of recidivism. What's difficult is for an admin to unilaterally act on something that has been going on for years unless something is currently happening. If you want to pursue a topic ban, you need to propose it at WP:AN; bear in mind that YS won't be able to respond directly while they're blocked, but if they wanted to make a statement somebody could copy it over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: For this specific editor, this is an agenda/edit war with him that flows across other articles. They have two other decorated war heroes that they believe were more decorated than Audie Murphy. And his edits are to rewrite Murphy's war record, and try minimize the medals/decorations. This time, he reduced the size of the Medal of Honor image, among other things. Our article does not say Murphy was the most decorated, specifically because nobody really knows who was the most decorated. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well the topic ban proposal went much better than I expected. I thought you'd get the topic ban but didn't expect it to end with an indef block. And if they evade the block, they're blockable on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The way he's going about requesting an unblock is going to get him banned to the point he'll need to appeal via ArbCom – which I hope does happen now, because we'll never see him active again. He just had the cheek to try to set me up by using 4-year old material. I was instantly suspicious of him returning to the same old patterns of harming the Audie Murphy article just months after I got unblocked after 3 years away, and now I'm even more suspicious given that he's trying to procure dubious evidence against me. Just keeps digging a deeper hole for himself... — Marcus^(talk) 10:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Kind of surprised me, also, at how quickly and efficiently the ANI system worked on this. — Maile (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

King's tour

Hi, Maile. I remember a while back you had a concern about King Kalākaua's world tour that you brought up on the FA talk page as part of a proposal. I attempted to remove the content, as I agreed with you that it wasn't helpful, but was reverted. That doesn't really bother me as it's not a subject I feel strongly about, but I wanted you to know that more references were introduced that need cleaning up. At least one of them is a bare link, and the book cites could use formatting too. I'm not touching the article again, so it will be up to you to do whatever cleanup is required. I must say, though, that it strikes me as odd that five cites are needed to cover a single quote; if the content was truly helpful, that still looks like overkill. Anyway, happy editing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I saw that, and I thank you for your efforts. I am hoping there are more eyes on that article. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Maile66. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

• Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up

• Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind

• Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017

• In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more

• Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors

• Gallery: Wiki loving

• Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures

• Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"

• Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech

• Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys

• Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well ...

Tech News: 2017-51

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

• Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 8 January 2018.

Problems

• When you import a page from another wiki the usernames of the users who edited the article on the wiki you imported it from are shown in the article history. This should link to the users on the original wiki. A script to fix this caused problems for Wikidata and German Wikipedia. It also created a large number of SUL accounts on wikis where editors had never edited. [1]
• Some bot owners got email about their bots logging in from a new computer. If this is from one or a couple of wikis, you can turn these messages off in your preferences on those wikis until the problem has been solved. If not, you can report more about the problem in Phabricator.

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week. There will be no new MediaWiki version next week either.

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 19 December at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Files on Commons will have structured metadata in the future. The developers are now looking for examples of different kinds of metadata to make sure they are aware of them when they build prototypes for structured data on Commons. You can read more and help by giving examples of interesting media files.
• The Structured Commons team are making sure Commons work with structured data. If you regularly contribute to Commons and Wikidata you can answer a survey that helps the team prioritise the tools that are important for the Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey ends on 22 December. You can read more on Commons. You can also help the team decide on better names for "captions" and "descriptions". This ends on 3 January 2018.
• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey has now ended. You can see the results. They decide what the Community Tech team will work on next year.

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

15:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know

Warning templates are supposed to be substituted. For example: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. Thank you. Hastiness (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)