User talk:Jonathunder: Difference between revisions
→Mayo Clinic: new section |
|||
Line 675: | Line 675: | ||
Best wishes, [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]</sup> 00:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
Best wishes, [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]</sup> 00:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
== Mayo Clinic == |
|||
Hi, Jonathunder! If you recall, several months ago you offered feedback to my requested updates to [[Talk:Mayo_Clinic#History|''History'' at Mayo Clinic]]. Based on your thoughts and those of another editor, I updated my request. However, no one has yet had a chance to review the proposed improvements. If you are still interested in editing articles about Mayo Clinic, I would really appreciate your feedback. Thanks! [[User:Audrey at Mayo Clinic|Audrey at Mayo Clinic]] ([[User talk:Audrey at Mayo Clinic|talk]]) 04:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:06, 14 January 2020
Template:Archive box collapsible
Missed email correspondence
Hi there Jonathunder, I just logged back in to Wikipedia after... hm... a while ;) I see a notification that you emailed me about the Heather Dale wiki page, but Gmail has conveniently eaten the email, and I am not sufficiently experienced with the wiki system to know if there's a way to retrieve a local copy. Would you mind emailing me again? Cheers, --Oh And Ben (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
NRHP contributions, tool available
Hi Jonathunder, thank you for your many contributions on NRHP topics, including new article Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club just now, which showed up on my watchlist because it happened to link to some article i created. But hey, it looks to me like you must be painfully constructing NRHP infoboxes, when there is a much easier way available. Also you hand-created an NRHP document reference, when there is a fuller pre-prepared reference available to copy-paste, which also includes link to the available accompanying photos.
In the current article, the refnum showing in the infobox is incorrect, I guess probably a not-yet-fixed copy from a different infobox. If you do click on it, it brings you to NRHP doc and photos for a different site. When creating new articles (at least for NRHP listings before some date in 2014), try using the "NRHP infobox generator" created/supported by editor Elkman, starting at http://elkman.net/nrhp/. E.g. what you see for this NRHP is yield for the Swede Prairie topic. Note that includes mostly filled-out infobox which you can/should further customize a bit. It has the refnum already and some more stuff. It would be easier to start an article by copy-pasting that in, rather than customizing from a completely different NRHP site.
Also it includes a good draft NRHP document reference:
<ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86001331}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=April 22, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86001331|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>
Which includes link to the accompanying photos. What I do is further customize that reference, to add the author and date of prep (like you did already in your reference), and further to add a count of the number of photos and to mention the photos' year(s):
<ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86001331}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author=Susan Granger |date=May 1985 |accessdate=April 22, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86001331|photos=y|title=accompanying two photos from 1984-85}}</ref>
That reference displays as:[1]
References
- ^ Susan Granger (May 1985). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Swede Prairie Progressive Farmers' Club". National Park Service. Retrieved April 22, 2019. With accompanying two photos from 1984-85
Oh I see you used " |last=Granger |first=Susan ", which is a bit better I guess, instead of just "|author=Susan Granger".
I hope there is some helpful info for you here. Basically you should just start at http://elkman.net/nrhp/ or http://elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php, and search for your NRHP. There is some more info about this at wp:NRHPHELP, too. Any which way you choose to do it, I am just glad you are contributing, and I hope you keep up your good work! cheers, --Doncram (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83
OTD June 5
I undid your edit on Selected anniversaries/June 5, because you took out two items that were having significant anniversaries (10th and 30th). I do appreciate the help, though I would prefer if you edit dates that I haven't done yet (in the page history, I'll have an edit with the summary "update for [year]"). Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- So now I saw your edit on June 4 too. If Tiananmen was eligible again, that pushes Tank Man out of June 5, but the 2009 item still gets priority. Also, three of the items you picked (Daming, Antonio Luna, and Congo Civil War) were on last year, and June 5 happens to have a large pool of eligible articles, so it would be preferable to give some of those other items a chance (see the talk page for each year's change log). Thanks again. —howcheng {chat} 16:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback and for your efforts as well to make the Main Page what it is. Jonathunder (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Mayo Clinic history
Hi, Jonathunder! I requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic. If you are still interested in updating this article, I appreciate your feedback.
Thanks! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Jonathunder! I updated my requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic based on your thoughts. If you are still interested in updating this article, I really appreciate your feedback. Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
:(
I've been generally saddened by the resignations in the wake of Framgate, and noticed that you had turned in the admin bit and are planning to step away from this site. While it's been awhile since we crossed paths, I recall you as an outstanding, thoughtful editor and admin, and Wikipedia will be poorer for your absence. I completely understand the reasons behind it—I just wanted to say that you've had a very positive impact here; I will miss running into you here and there, and I wish you luck in whatever you do with your reclaimed Wikipedia time. :) Take care. MastCell Talk 23:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Many thanks for all your hard work over the year. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
- Welcome back :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
with thanks
cornflowers |
---|
some wildflowers of thanks and understanding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
- Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising
- In the media: The disinformation age
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters
- Technology report: Actors and Bots
- Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?
- Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia
- From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal
- Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes
Sad to See You Leave
It is with sincere disappointment that I saw that you are phasing out of the project and I will be the first to welcome you back. If you ever find yourself driving through my neck of the woods, my coffee pot is always on! -- Dolotta (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I shared Dolotta's disappointment, and so I'm happy to see you back. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
- 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- 1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
- 2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
|
|
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Mzmadmike
Hi, forgive me for being a busybody, but a couple of things about WP:CBAN. First, the ban is usually recorded at WP:Editing restrictions. Second, although not required, you can place a tag on the editor's userpage. A non-administrator did that, and I reverted because it's your call and because non-admins shouldn't be tagging other editor's userpages anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding WP:Editing restrictions
Hi, I believe that Mzmadmike shouldn't have been placed in Editing Restrictions, because it states that "editors who are subject to site bans are listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users instead". Feel free to ignore this if I'm incorrect, that's just how I understand it and I wanted to bring it up to you. Best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're right, but I was just following the instructions in the above section. Jonathunder (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I would undo it, but I really don't feel like drawing any more ire against Bbb23 (They're also wrong about non-administrators not being allowed to place CBAN tags on users, but that's a separate issue). I guess maybe ask another admin? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing to undo because Jonathaunder hasn't put the user in editing restrictions. However, you bring up an interesting point because editing restrictions does say what you said, but that conflicts with WP:CBAN. If you want to do something useful, I would go to the talk page of WP:CBAN and point out the discrepancy because it should be resolved. As for the category, when Jonathaunder undid my revert at the user's userpage the ban tag automatically places the user in the category, but it's a hidden category. Hope this helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, I'm wrong, Jonathunder edited a section of it, and that doesn't show up in the history of the overall page. I'm not sure what I'd do at this point, but I think I'd undo the editing restriction edit, at least for the moment, but I don't see any of this as urgent, and I'm going off-wiki now.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing to undo because Jonathaunder hasn't put the user in editing restrictions. However, you bring up an interesting point because editing restrictions does say what you said, but that conflicts with WP:CBAN. If you want to do something useful, I would go to the talk page of WP:CBAN and point out the discrepancy because it should be resolved. As for the category, when Jonathaunder undid my revert at the user's userpage the ban tag automatically places the user in the category, but it's a hidden category. Hope this helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I would undo it, but I really don't feel like drawing any more ire against Bbb23 (They're also wrong about non-administrators not being allowed to place CBAN tags on users, but that's a separate issue). I guess maybe ask another admin? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll go make a note on the talk page of WP:CBAN about it, thank you for the suggestion! I think the reason indefinite bans aren't supposed to be listed in Editing Restrictions is for the same reason we don't have LOBU anymore: basically they just amount to gravedancing. At least, that's how I understand it. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Quick edit: I think the intent is that a community site-ban sanction be logged by adding the banned user template to the user page, which is what I was trying to do when I applied the template to Mzmadmike's userpage (which like you said, causes it to show up in the list of banned users category, which is what we would want). That's at least how I reconciled current practice (posting the CBAN template on a userpage) with what it says. Like I said, I'll make a post about it in the talk page. I almost think I should make a post at the village pump regarding revising the whole way we do community site bans. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll go make a note on the talk page of WP:CBAN about it, thank you for the suggestion! I think the reason indefinite bans aren't supposed to be listed in Editing Restrictions is for the same reason we don't have LOBU anymore: basically they just amount to gravedancing. At least, that's how I understand it. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Ottavio Bottecchia has been tagged with needing ref improvement. Can you help remedy that? Otherwise, if I can't fix it myself, I may be forced to replace him. Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I replaced him with Kurmanbek Bakiyev (b. 1949) as this will be his 70th birthday and the article is better referenced. Feel free, of course, to undo that or replace with a third person if you find someone better. Jonathunder (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
- In the media: Politics starts getting rough
- Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
- Arbitration report: A month of reintegration
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?
- News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way
- Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect
- Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract
- Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things
Administrators' newsletter – August 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
- A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.
- Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.
- Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
- The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
The Signpost: 30 August 2019
- News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings
- In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff
- Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users
- Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes
- News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
- Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
- Floquenbeam • Lectonar
- DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana
- Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime
- Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
- The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Pete Buttigieg Protection
Hi there,
I see in the history of the article that you AC-ed it today for a week, but the padlock doesn't seem to have appeared - could you confirm that you added the {{}} bit of it? Or that there isn't another issue at play?
It may need EC-protection if another AC-permissioned editor vandalises it.
Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. When I've protected a page in the past, I think a bot or someone who attends to such things has applied the padlock, but to be perfectly honest, I haven't paid attention. Can anyone watching this page do what is needed or tell me what to do? Jonathunder (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Judging from a previous protection action, it looks like you have to add the Page protection template manually. | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minnesota State Highway 277, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chippewa County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Dorsey at Lakewood
Today I made it to Lakewood Cemetery and came away with a not great but usable image. Maybe you can do better. I wondered if Lakewood accepts money for cleanup of graves. Most of her family is there but it's difficult to see exactly where. I couldn't find her brother Nebraska, the pianist. File:Dorsey_Lakewood_Cemetery_20190928.jpg. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- So good to hear from you again, Susan. Could I ask what time of day the photo was taken? Perhaps an overcast day later this fall will provide more even light and good color. I can try. Do you have the specific location of this marker? Jonathunder (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Greetings, Jonathunder the Kind. Burial Search for "Ida Dorsey" will yield a link to "Print Map" which is a map of Section 11. She's in Lot 506 which can be inferred to be close to "Priene." Priene is a small monument and I never saw "Bulmer" that the map labels. The tree might be the best landmark to help you find the Dorseys. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. I think I made this one around noon. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2019
- From the editors: Where do we go from here?
- Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup
- Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads
- News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green
- Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Happy First edit day!
Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear Jonathunder,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
File:2019-10-07DanFeehan.jpg
Please remember to check Special:WhatLinksHere when moving a file without a redirect and update any links pointing to that file. In the case of File:2019-10-07DanFeehan.jpg, a redirect should have been left behind per WP:FILEREDIRECT and WP:PMRC. While you are the uploader and can change the file name to whatever you would like, "Overly long name" would generally fall under WP:FMNN unless the name was seriously approaching the 240 byte limit. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- There's no need for a redirect to the overly long name you came up with, as it will never be used. For one thing, it's not a unique description: the file on Commons is also of Feehan at a campaign announcement. You might have asked me before moving the file. Jonathunder (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Mia Native American Artists Edit-a-Thon
Mia Native American Artists Edit-a-Thon | |
---|---|
Hello Jonathunder. You are invited to attend a Native American Artists edit-a-thon at the Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia) on Saturday, November 9, 2019, from 11am to 4pm. In celebration of Native American Heritage Month, join in honoring Native American artists whose work is represented in Mia's collections by creating or enhancing Wikipedia articles.
|
- Thank you for the invitation, but I will be attending the WikiConference North America 2019. Jonathunder (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Public art in Boston
Happy to continue the discussion on the Statue of Leif Erikson (Boston), but in the meantime, just wanted to thank you for your work expanding the article. Just FYI, if you're interested in public art/sculpture in Boston in general, I am currently using the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Sculpture/Boston to expand List of public art in Boston and create articles about public artworks in the city. I'll be creating a similar list for Cambridge as well. I doing this work ahead and of the upcoming WikiConference and hope to continue creating many more pages! Thanks again for your help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I plan to go to the same conference; perhaps I'll see you there. I found the monument when compiling a list of sites to visit and try to improve the photos, as I have long been interested in Leif Eriksson and Norse exploration in general, being from Minnesota and claiming descent from Vikings. Jonathunder (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Jonathunder, I'll be there!, so say hi if you see me around. I hope to visit some of these monuments as a walk around the city outside the conference. Whether or not you tackle any other public artwork articles, happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2019
- In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit
- Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse
- Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars
- Community view: Observations from the mainland
- Arbitration report: October actions
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast
- Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Edit rights
Hi there,
I see you made a change to my edit rights based on The SignPost article. I gave SmallBones the citation to the AN Closure Board of the ANI Review of all of these same allegations, but he did not use it. SoWhy, an uninvolved admin summarizing the admin consensus said Feinberg’s story was written by someone who “has no idea how Wikipedia works” and that I had not violated any Wikipedia policies or Terms of Use. [1]. Swarm, an admin who was involved in the discussion, did his own summary of the ANI review: "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong. It has been suggested that the user should probably be more concise, but we haven't seen anything to support the notion that they're relentlessly argumentative or engage in "bludgeoning" behavior." [2] The ANI review included the PayTalk and bludgeoning accusations that Smallbones is bringing up again. Dozens of editors looked at every contribution I ever made and found no violation. My entire consulting practice is based on ethical behavior and strictly following Wikipedia policies.
Farrow says in the end notes to his book that the accusations against me are taken from the Huffington Post story. I don't see why changing my status is justified just because the press repeats the same accusations and finds Wikipedia's COI policies objectionable (that there is a sanctioned process for paid conflicted editors to propose changes and have them reviewed by independent Wikipedia editors).
Cheers, Ed BC1278 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- I simply don't see the need for the extended edit right on an account which is only used for paid advocacy. Jonathunder (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- If it's something you want to propose to your fellow admins for all self-declared paid editors, then that's understandable. To be frank, I don't understand the full implications of what you've done yet. Maybe it makes sense. My point is that more than any other paid editor in recent years, my work has already been poured over. So why treat me differently than other paid editors? BC1278 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- And I certainly don't engage in WP: Advocacy. Much of my work consists of suggesting to other editors that they correct biased and inaccurate language and POV being flung at the subjects of articles. I often use the official channel just to ask for corrections. Some of the admins who actually looked at the accusations closely at ANI, like Swarm, said my work made Wikipedia more accurate. You're taking this action based on a newsletter column that's based on press accounts written by people who have no experience on Wikipedia. The columnist on Wired takes the position that anyone getting paid is engaging in "paid advocacy." He thinks he's making up a new term -- he doesn't know Wikipedia has its own policy with the same name. BC1278 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia actually does not have a policy with that name. And you are certainly engaging in paid advocacy on behalf of your clients as e.g. defined by Jimmy Wales. I think Jonathunder made the right decision here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Adding my +1 as an admin in support of removing the extended rights too. Personally, I'm fine with uncontroversial paid editing (rather, proposed edits on the talk page as you do), the controversial editing and back-and-forth about proposed edits is much more problematic. tedder (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just wanted to weigh in here to note that BC1278 (talk) has repeatedly mischaracterized the discussions that took place around the propriety of his editing behavior (and he steadfastly refuses to link to the full discussion for that very reason). The consensus seems to be that he's either completely unethical but manages to violate the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines without violating their letter, or that he's blatantly breaking the rules. He has a history of scrubbing his talk page, but has been repeatedly admonished by other editors for his aggressive advocacy in the past. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia actually does not have a policy with that name. And you are certainly engaging in paid advocacy on behalf of your clients as e.g. defined by Jimmy Wales. I think Jonathunder made the right decision here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- And I certainly don't engage in WP: Advocacy. Much of my work consists of suggesting to other editors that they correct biased and inaccurate language and POV being flung at the subjects of articles. I often use the official channel just to ask for corrections. Some of the admins who actually looked at the accusations closely at ANI, like Swarm, said my work made Wikipedia more accurate. You're taking this action based on a newsletter column that's based on press accounts written by people who have no experience on Wikipedia. The columnist on Wired takes the position that anyone getting paid is engaging in "paid advocacy." He thinks he's making up a new term -- he doesn't know Wikipedia has its own policy with the same name. BC1278 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- If it's something you want to propose to your fellow admins for all self-declared paid editors, then that's understandable. To be frank, I don't understand the full implications of what you've done yet. Maybe it makes sense. My point is that more than any other paid editor in recent years, my work has already been poured over. So why treat me differently than other paid editors? BC1278 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice from other admins. I have not examined BC1278's history in detail, much less taken a position on any disputes, so I think I remain uninvolved. I simply don't think an account for paid editing, which is mostly confined to talk pages, needs the extended edit right. I don't think what I did should really make much difference. Jonathunder (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
A Dobos torte for you!
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Calvin Brown
Hello Jonathunder,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Calvin Brown for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Freedom Trail, license
Hey, figured I'd follow up here since I'm going off-topic.
Did you wind up doing the whole Freedom Trail? I took a lot of pics at the Granary Burying Ground, Bunker Hill Monument, and the Skinny House, but just a few elsewhere. I feel like there are a lot of opportunities at Faneuil Hall, etc. if only I had a better lens with me or the light were more cooperative. :) I lived in Boston for a while, but never actually got around to most of the touristy stuff, so it was nice to come back (frigid though it was).
Also just curious if there's a story behind your choice of license? I'm not used to seeing that on new files, so just curious (I'm not someone who's particularly passionate about choice of license FWIW). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- I walked only part of the trail, as there was so much to see and photograph. I want to visit Boston again and get more. As for why I choose the GFDL, it's because I've found in practice Creative Commons gets treated as Public Domain and with it work all too often gets reused elsewhere without attribution. Jonathunder (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- After Copp's Hill it's just the USS Constitution and Bunker Hill Monument. Much longer walks to those than the others, so a sensible cut-off point.
- What about being GFDL leads people to either not use or actually provide attribution? Or is it by virtue of not being on Commons? I do see all manner of attribution (or non attribution) to my photos. Sometimes if I see that one's being used frequently I'll reverse image search it and find a bunch of low rent blogs, etc. using it without attribution (or e.g. "via Wikipedia"). Meh. It's annoying but I complain only when it's flagrant or a particularly high-profile publication (Huffington Post, etc. should know better). In a couple cases, nontrivial publications have even slapped their own name on it (!). Thankfully they're usually willing to fix their mistakes... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2019
- From the editor: Put on your birthday best
- News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?
- In the media: You say you want a revolution
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases
- Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker
- Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things
- Gallery: Winter and holidays
- Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews
- Essay: Adminitis
- From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
- EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
- Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
Interface administrator changes
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
File:ChastenPeteButtigieg.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ChastenPeteButtigieg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC) |
If God played dice with the universe...
...and initially bet on snake eyes with Eve, sending his son down to Earth to play rock paper scissors with its primates for awhile was one of his better ideas. Happiest of Christmas and New Year's to you and yours, and a blessed 2020 to follow! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 December 2019
- From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again
- News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages
- In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?
- Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki
- Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December
- Technology report: User scripts and more
- Gallery: Holiday wishes
- Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary
- From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report
Minneapolis RfCs
Your input at 1, 2, or 3 would be welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Six years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted
rather thanreasonably construed
. - Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
Alexa Bliss file dispute
Would it be better for me to back the deletion nomination (which is seemingly lacking) of the current file in question and re-upload it with a free license to remediate the "fair use" issue causing the other user to disruptively edit the article? It is a far higher quality image and without anyone else in frame, far more fitting for the article, in my opinion. ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Where did you get File:Lexi Kaufman Wikipedia.jpg? When you uploaded it, you wrote "This picture was taken at a public event" but you did not say who took the picture. That's important. Did you get it off the Internet? Jonathunder (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- No no, it's not off the Internet, the photo itself is mine. However, I am not in it and I felt it would be a better fit than the previous one which has others in the shot, appears grainy, etc ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you took it yourself with your camera, please say that in the deletion discussion. It may help to say what kind of camera you used and other circumstances you are willing to share. If you are indeed the photographer, the photo should not be deleted and you deserve thanks for uploading it. Jonathunder (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. If and when can the picture be restored to the article? Should I refrain from doing so until the deletion request is denied? ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you took it yourself with your camera, please say that in the deletion discussion. It may help to say what kind of camera you used and other circumstances you are willing to share. If you are indeed the photographer, the photo should not be deleted and you deserve thanks for uploading it. Jonathunder (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- No no, it's not off the Internet, the photo itself is mine. However, I am not in it and I felt it would be a better fit than the previous one which has others in the shot, appears grainy, etc ☧Catholic Laitinen ☧ (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Mayo Clinic
Hi, Jonathunder! If you recall, several months ago you offered feedback to my requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic. Based on your thoughts and those of another editor, I updated my request. However, no one has yet had a chance to review the proposed improvements. If you are still interested in editing articles about Mayo Clinic, I would really appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)