User talk:MJL: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,464: Line 1,464:


In good faith, I'm opening this discussion per the following reason: Since you were so firm on my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden talk page] that you monitor Golden's edits and will let them know if they're wrong, you shouldn't have missed edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aghoghlan_Gate&diff=1093131543&oldid=1073271143&diffmode=source this]; A) [[Shushi]] wasn't occupied, B) There is no such thing as "partial revert of a sock", this is highly dubious and selective editing; either you revert the whole sock edit or not, end of story. In any case, "occupation" isn't the term to use here in fact it's POV, Shushi has nothing to do with [[Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh]]. Golden should/is aware of this at the very least because they voted in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian-occupied_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_2 article move]. I'd expect you enact on your words and let them know to not repeat POV edits like this. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In good faith, I'm opening this discussion per the following reason: Since you were so firm on my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZaniGiovanni#Golden talk page] that you monitor Golden's edits and will let them know if they're wrong, you shouldn't have missed edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aghoghlan_Gate&diff=1093131543&oldid=1073271143&diffmode=source this]; A) [[Shushi]] wasn't occupied, B) There is no such thing as "partial revert of a sock", this is highly dubious and selective editing; either you revert the whole sock edit or not, end of story. In any case, "occupation" isn't the term to use here in fact it's POV, Shushi has nothing to do with [[Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh]]. Golden should/is aware of this at the very least because they voted in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian-occupied_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_2 article move]. I'd expect you enact on your words and let them know to not repeat POV edits like this. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

:@[[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]]: I did miss that (only human), so thank you for sharing that with me.<br />{{re|Golden}} ZG is right. Do not partially revert socks. [[WP:BANREVERT]] does not apply here because: [[Special:Diff/1028249762|this edit]] was made before [[Special:Diff/1045862054|CY was banned]] (and contrary to popular belief, reverting socks should only be done for edits made ''after'' the sockmaster was banned). Regardless, if there was parts of the edit you disagreed with, then you should've just made them as normal edits.<br />Also, as ZG said, please be careful with using potentially-POV terms like {{tq|occupation}}. This applies even if you are reverting a banned user since we are always responsible for the edits we make (regardless if we have a specific reason for them or not). If you aren't 100% confident a term should be used, don't make the change. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[User:MJL/P|☖]]</sup></span> 14:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:56, 15 June 2022


(talk page stalker) Don't mind us, just go about your editing.

MJL may want to increment {{User talk:MJL/Banner}} to |counter=30 as User talk:MJL/Archive 29 is larger than the set 31Kb (help).


Fire Emblem characters

Hi MJL, I dont want to actually waste your time working it, but it already deemed that the article can't be notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.61.90 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP. I'm mostly just doing it for fun and explore how that list would actually look like were it written. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Movement for a People's Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Movement for a People's Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. You have been a significant contributor to it, thus why I am notifying you.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement for a People's Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SecretName101 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daraj Media has been accepted

Daraj Media, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E11Even Miami

Hello, MJL,

I'm surprised you accepted this article which mainly seems notable by the fact that a few celebrities visited it. The lead calls it a nightclub but later on it is described as just a strip club. Is it just a local strip club? The page creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry but not so the article can be deleted for it, CSD G5Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: So the first thing that convinced me of its notability was this article by Men's Journal. That was a particularly in depth piece for a single night club, and that's what I used for the basis of the The night club has been noted for hosting several high profile patrons line. Secondly, the Miami Herald had pretty decent coverage of the establishment with headlines like: 'You live and learn': G-Eazy parties in Miami with new girlfriend – at a familiar club and Miami's favorite 24/7 nightclub is reopening after 7 months. Here's what to expect (of course there's more in the individual articles), but the only thing I could conclude was that the Herald seemed to view this place as particularly noteworthy in regards to the city's nightlife.
As for the strip club / nightclub thing, I don't know. The Independent calls it a strip club in what little I can see outside the paywall. Considering I have never been to either type of club, I couldn't tell you personally if there is much of a difference?
My conclusion is that the article demonstrates notability while not being an obvious advertisement. After I accepted the draft, I filed the SPI against the article creator, so I already knew about the socking thing. If you think the article is not ready for mainspace, I'll revert my action to publish it. Otherwise, I can see no policy reason to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard- October 2021

Hi, MJL! Here is the October 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard!

Wikipedia News

Humour

Editor's Notes

  • Thank you for your patience, I was busy, and still am, so issues of TWW may be delayed.
Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and have a safe and happy Halloween/October! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 00:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état

On 26 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

  1. Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
  2. England Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
  3. Rwanda Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
  4. New York (state) Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
  5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
  6. Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
  7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
  8. Republic of Venice Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Homestuck has been nominated for renaming

Category:Wikipedians who like Homestuck has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Hello! Thanks for the input. I agree from your angle. Just based it off some other article/redirect combinations. I will be glad to adjust how I edit on my end. There is a lot of gray area there that is not worth doing a certain way or another. Not worth the trouble. If I can do anything to help, just let me know and how it can be added or adjusted. Best wishes. Red Director (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Director: Well you saw you added {{WikiProject Current events|class=redirect}} to Talk:1780 in the US (and every other year), right? That was the primary thing I was trying to tell you about. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Yes, I saw your message. What do you suggest I do about it if anything needs to be done? I can leave it as is as well. What I am saying is that I will adjust my editing in the future to not create those redirect talk pages for just WikiProject templates. Red Director (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Director: I mean, please don't keep that tag there. 1780 is as far away from "Current events" as possible. I would go through all "Talk:XXXX in the US" pages and systematically remove that banner. Whether you do that through Rater or AWB is your choice of course. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I understand now. Yes, I will be glad to remove those on there. I can remove that on all of those but the current year if that works with you. Thanks for letting me know. Red Director (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Director: Indeed it does! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the Punjab

Hey MJL, could you please give some details regarding this closure? 3 users participated. The title suggested in the RM was opposed by 2. But the proposer and one of the !votes seemed to be ok with the alternative title "Punjabi folk religion". But maybe I misread the discussion, so an explanation would be helpful. Thanks, VR talk 00:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VR: Hmmm, I think I messed up with that one. I was going a bit too fast that I might have misread a lot of things (thought it was a procedural nomination). I should've re-listed that and try to be more careful in the future while closing RMs. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
arrow Self-reverted –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! VR talk 10:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MJL: thanks for reopening the discussion. In the week following the reopening, from 6 Nov to 13 Nov, the vote had become 3 to 2 in favor of moving the page to "Folk religion in Punjab." It ought to have been reclosed about a week ago, but due to it now being left open for an extra week, it is now tied again. Pinging @Vice regent: it you have any input. Sapedder (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is a bit of a mess, IMO. So instead of trying to close it, I'll jump into it and try and find consensus.VR talk 13:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Thanks. I've left a reply to your conditions there, hopefully it's adequate. Sapedder (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDF RfC without closure

Hello, MJL.

I see the RFC: New PDF icon that you started at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) has been archived by the bot without any apparent closure. This is a shame, IMO, because I thought it was an interesting issue that you raised, and had quite a bit of discussion. Do you want to (or want me to) pull the section back out of the archive so it can be formally closed? Or would you rather drop it? I think (from memory, as I haven't studied it closely lately) that your Option 2 was building consensus. Do we (you?) have to formally post something at WP:RFCLOSE? I daren't close it myself, as I posted some five times in the RfC (albeit due to much waffling), and ended up ]voting Option 2 myself. What now? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnFromPinckney: Well, it's pretty clear that Option 2 has the most consensus in favour of it (which is a shame imo because File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg  would be the best pick). I would recommend you just start a new discussion proposing whichever icon from that discussion (minus Option 1) you think would have the highest chance of gaining consensus.
Basically, there would be no point in getting a formal close in favour of Option 2 since it requires a second discussion anyways to move forwards. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Kubrick boxed in

Howdy. The IP does have a good point, though. It's 22 for infobox vs 2 against infobox. There's really no reason for bludgeoning the two anti-infoboxers :) GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I agree, but I don't think that how the IP worded their comment was particularly helpful in achieving that stated aim. I already received acknowledgement from one user that they understood why it would be unconstructive, so unless I see it continue I don't see what else can come from further discussing the issue about this issue. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I wasn't feeling pressured by the pro-infoboxers. Just found it strange :) GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius

Encouraged by the Kubrick discussion, I gave Jean Sibelius an infobox yesterday, as a birthday gift, which was reverted (after quite a while of exposure from the Main page). I asked for support and oppose on the talk but am reluctant to request people's time by another formal RfC. MJL, could you still please just watch over the discussion for civility? The 2015 discussion garnered comments such as "rotten idea", which are simply not helping a factual evaluation. I don't think DS play a role, - I actually believe that they never worked well for this topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I'll happily watch the discussion for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
December songs
Today is Sunday, and I'm determined to be happy which means that I have to ignore for now what Ssilvers wrote (again, after his multi-point collection was rejected for Maritana in 2016, and for Ian Fleming this year), - a user who has contributed little if any to this article. I leave "his" articles alone, and he should leave the articles of others alone, to avoid friction, - that would be so easy. User:Silence of Järvenpää is a key contributor to all Sibelius-related matters, see my talk, and Ipigott, Mirokado and Antandrus to the composer's article. - More tomorrow, today is Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the article talk. Still on vacation, I enjoyed today's TFA, an Italian opera, my second ever, article written by two dear people, and for the pictured DYK a park where I went with dear people --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria reverted herself. - I wonder how we could avoid the time sink - and the hurtful personal confrontations - next time? The 2020 so-called discussion was a farce nobody I know regarded as meaningful. In the 2015 discussion, the principal editor had one wish: no words about the topic. I added several articles about compositions then, DYK? ... including one about ice-breaking ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
on Beethoven's birthday - DYK that an arb - reelected today - added the infobox for Beethoven, in 2015? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Message on my Talk Page

Sorry to bother, but I posted an important message on my talk page (my apologies in advance for the length) that I would like for you to read. Bill Williams 06:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Williams: That's a lot of words, and shouldn't you be asleep? :p
DM me on Discord if you still have it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry for the extremely detailed paragraphs, I just wanted to be open and clear about everything. I will be sleeping soon enough, and unfortunately I haven't had discord for Wikipedia in a while (since my foolish sockpuppetry), but I could get it back if you'd like. Bill Williams 06:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bill Williams: Yeah, it would be better if you got one just because you might like to ask me questions and stuff as you did before your block. Here is the server link. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will make a new account and join the server when I wake up in the morning. Bill Williams 06:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I still haven't slept because someone will not stop arguing with me, spamming multiple paragraphs on my talk page, repeatedly insulting me and using bolded font in various paragraphs... If you want to check it out on my talk page, you can view what is going on, but I deleted my whole story of what happened with sockpuppets because I cannot deal with that right now and this man bothering me. Speaking of, he just posted another rant on my talk page right now. Bill Williams 10:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It ended with them being blocked for a week, so hopefully I can continue to actually edit what I want (maps, demographics, leads etc.) rather than argue indefinitely on talk pages. Bill Williams 14:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bill Williams: Well, I'd still love to catch up with you on Discord anytime. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Incubator multi

Template:Incubator multi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Klaus Becker

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my draft. I actually did not want to resubmit, just save small changes and am still looking for a better source that is not connected to the subject. Sorry that made a seemingly suspicious change 2603:6080:4540:99:353A:B8FF:E4DD:EC5B (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! These thing happen. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of Anthony Elkins page

Hello. I received a message that you reviewed this draft page I created. But the page still shows that it is under review. Does it mean it requires further review? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anthony_Elkins

Anderson1970 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Free content from Microbiome

A tag has been placed on Category:Free content from Microbiome indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Miller Company Collection of Abstract Art

This is really crazy. There is now a statement on this page alleging possible undisclosed payment and promotional! It's art and design history, and has tons of links to a range of sources for more information. Isn't this defamatory?

If the page were deleted, then it just means people will find bits elsewhere in search. (Former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely WP:BITE-y. I'll work on getting it fixed after the holiday. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There's a string from this user. artdesigncafe is now a "spamblog" of low quality. It's not nice but it's a bit funny. There was a request yesterday by a museum curator to add designs in a compilation to the "spamblog of low quality"!:-) And if you search links there are a number in books, etc. hehe. Because I pushed Tremaine, that seems a target. I'm just passionate about her work; I have well over 5000 sources. Best (Former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people misuse Wikipedia to promote a client or business. It's a big problem, so a lot of these editors are so used to seeing that they see it everywhere (and make mistakes like with you). Please don't stress too much about it. I'll get most of it resolved after today (still with family). Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :-) Rough and tumble wiki is a new experience. If it helps, the "spamblog with low quality" referenced on the Miller Co page, is also referenced for the same content on p. 147 and under journals and magazines p. 201 in a book 'Tremaine Houses' 2019 published by the Getty. I see that book is on google books. One is a reprint of an article published in a magazine, offline. Part of that core research was done connected to a university... (Mystified, former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit more if I may, as I believe a designated senior editor with a visual arts interest is on this, which is great. "Close connection": well, yes, it's a content knowledge, I'd think of it as a post-MA academic obsession. So people that do post-MA research should not be contributing content directly in their knowledge area it seems... "Like an advertisement": first it aimed to be factual: what was done and why, who was involved, and then what happened later, and people add / adjust what they know, if interested. There was nothing on it before I recall, and at that time, I think 5 yers ago, there was little with any depth on the internet. The topic is not so developed to have strong criticisms in the secondary source discourse, but maybe in 10 years, but that would go into theory and quite specialist. I just aim to engage with facts. "Too much on primary sources": I see now it's a wiki policy, but it's interesting because my orientation IS primary sources regarding lesser developed histories, which is encouraged in academic spheres due to problematic secondary sources. There are clear, factual errors in the secondary sources of lesser developed design histories. Some only have just a step beyond a promotional book as a secondary source.

The sources I added to the Elza Temary page are all primary sources because that history is not developed at all, there seem some film books, offline, with minimal entries which I don't have here, and so it was about, with 15-20 minutes, contributing something known to add to that stub. What I've learned is, wiki is a totally different content development orientation, and I should not have added anything, and just focused on what I do elsewhere. But with just this above, this is why I'd recommend everything I ever contributed to be deleted, if / when possible. I just don't get it, it's valued by some and not others, so I shouldn't have bothered. (Former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking after this difficult wave, as there is sincere interest in the content knowledge and I won't be adding anything, I could certainly suggest things and point to organized sources for quicker development. In this regard, the I. E. Palmer Co. and Middetown Silver Co. [after Middletown Plate Co.] are two important American design histories with national impact. Also Lilian Hellander was an important design force working out of Meriden in the 1930s. She is a star in the modern silver design specialism. (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Steele dossier

Hi MJL. I noticed a whole lot of recent changes at the Steele dossier article and would like more information/explanation. I am never really certain about the correct ref formats for some sources, such as news agencies, websites, etc. That is because there seems to be no real consensus on the matter. My immediate questions are about agencies and news websites, such as Associated Press, Reuters, ABC News, CNN, etc. These are usually used without italics, but your changes italicized them. What's the explanation?

In the absence of a firm consensus, I have usually followed the idea that if they are italicized in their own articles, I italicize them in the refs and other mentions. If not, then I don't do it. I use their articles as my guide. Does that make sense to you? -- Valjean (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@24601: According to {{cite news/doc}}, the |agency= parameter is used for The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher. (bold in original) My preference is generally to use |work= because it further states for |publisher=: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). (formatting also in original) Hope that helps for why I changed it. I can also change it back if you really want to keep it that way since I haven't contributed all that much to the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good explanation. Learning something new everyday here. Now to remember it.... -- Valjean (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I just noticed the 24601. Are you a fan of Les Misérables? As you can see from my user page, I'm a big fan of the book, musicals, movies, and music. -- Valjean (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: I literally just got into it. Last week I saw Les Misérables: The Staged Concert on YouTube for the first time which was the only major exposure I have had with it as a work. I really liked it, and now the songs are stuck in my head. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hallelujah! You've hit the mother lode of literature. There are many great books, and it's one of them. I first read it in Danish while learning the language. Then I've read it twice in English. I have also seen it on stage in Copenhagen. We were blown away. Great music. I used to own the DVDs of the 10th Anniversary and 25th Anniversary concerts, but they, along with everything else, were burned in the 2018 Camp Fire. Lea Salonga, one of my favorite singers, acted and sang in both concerts. You can find her performances on YouTube. Here are four from Les Miserables:
She was the original Miss Saigon at 18 years of age. It's a modern Madame Butterfly set in Vietnam. Great songs. You can see the Manila performance in two parts. It's professional quality, so throw it onto your smart TV and enjoy a great show (not for small children): Act 1, Act 2 -- Valjean (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Thank you for the barnstar

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the barnstar. It means a lot to me during these difficult times. I hope that when my treatment is complete, I will become super scorpion, return to work and finish my last 9 credit hours at college. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: Of course! I know I've been there in the low periods with mental health. It's understandable, and you shouldn't push yourself too hard.
If you are ever in Connecticut, I'm sure we can chill or something. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually in Boston right now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EHT

Hi. Hope you had a nice weekend. I had a think, and as you know, I've learned a lot more about the practicals at wikipedia. as we know, drafting a good article takes a lot of time. You decide of course, but I'd argue she does not need that time effort here, while other female historical figure do. (or the effort to save existing articles listed on the WomeninRed page.) in the end, it's very easy for researchers to find current information on emily online, which you have pointed to already. however, the 2-3 designers that I mentioned that Leonor Antunes flagged up, have very little on the internet, and I checked Lillian Helander, the designer. In the latter case, that's all in hard copy books and I recall no short bio at all. It's just the state of the internet regarding sources before 1995 especially.

So it is up to you. I usually communicate with people via email, and for example with Lillian I could send scans from a couple of very respected hard copy books by colleagues, and point directly to silver encyclopedias. But if you are particularly passionate about Emily, I could be helpful, support that with maybe a fact check read of the final draft. My key hope is correct facts, especially with sensitive points, and the book occasionally, as books do, has a few factual errors. So I could send a better, more knowledgeable source showing a correction for any of that. There are often errors in articles and books for different reasons. I talk about this with colleagues often-- it drives us crazy sometimes. Best regards (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Draft:SudShare

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:SudShare. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard- December 2021

Hi, MJL! Here is the December 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard!

Humour

  • Christmas is here again, time to bug people to get you the stuff you really, really want! (Anyone going to get me some butter cookies, or that giant Costco teddy bear?)
  • If you don't like turkey, there's always the rotisserie chicken!
  • If you ate too much turkey and regret it, then you should have read the above message ;)

Wikipedia News

We don't have much to report this month, but we do have the following...
  • The Simple English Wikipedia has almost reached 200,000 articles!
  • Wikipedia Asian Month which took place in November, has finished. Now, all the articles are judged and then it is determined who gets the postcards, even if you don't get one, or didn't participate, there is always next year, and we thank you for everything you have done!
  • Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021 took place earlier this month, for elegible editors. (At the time of this writing it was still taking place, but I assumed by the time this issue was sent, it would have been finished - It is set to finish at December 6 2021 at 23:59 UTC )

Editor's Notes

  • I haven't forgotten about TWW ;) Don't worry.
  • TWW is in the process of getting a new main page, if you have any ideas, or would like to help, please shoot a message on the TWW talk page.
  • That's it for this issue! This is the last issue for 2021. See you all in 2022! Have a safe and happy holiday season!
Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here.

Happy Holidays! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was sent to you with the help of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 01:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim it is a constructive edit?

Excuse me, I saw your edit on my talk page, can you tell how it was a constructive edit? WP:OR is not allowed, any edit which is original research is not allowed and should be treated as disruptive editing, and I have welcomed many many IPs and editors before who have been constructive or non-constructive, check my edit history if you want to. If you need a link here it is WP:DISRUPT So, your accusation of me misusing ROLLBACK and biting new users is absolutely wrong, I am deleting it from my talk page, I don't feel it was a proper constructive criticism. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@QuantumRealm: I did check your history, and do think this is absolutely a one-off issue. However, the edit clearly falls under WP:PLOTSUMMARY/MOS:PLOT/WP:PRIMARY.
I don't see how the edit seriously wasn't an attempt at being constructive. This is explicitly the intentions of the character within the story. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Using rollback is meant for undoing obvious vandalism or disruptive editing. There are plenty of situations where using the undo button is fine, but using rollback isn't. This is one example. It may seem trivial, but using rollback for things that aren't vandalism or disruptive editing can get you in trouble. I had trouble getting granted pending changes reviewer because of two instances where I used rollback when I should have used undo. MJL was trying to help you, not just criticize you. Accusing anyone who criticizes you of misunderstanding policy and being wrong is not a way to become a better editor. I've been the subject of bitter criticism before, and sometimes it was valid. I have learned from it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox pronoun module

Template:Infobox pronoun module has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in admins

Hi MJL, My draft article about Susan Phoenix, who is an author with multiple best-selling books behind her name, got deleted in a somewhat harsh way by Theroadislong. He said that it was too promotional. The only information which was displayed in the article was information about her background (birthplace, kids and further family), what she studied (PhD in psychology and that sort of stuff) and of course, what books she wrote. Furthermore, all sources were independent and referencing was done in a proper way. Is is possible to reserve you as a reviewer for when I try to write the article again?

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Line Redline (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Line Redline: I don't normally take reservations, but sure I don't see why not!
It does appear that Susan Phoenix meets WP:GNG.
If I may suggest a few sources for you, because I do see many new users get this wrong (and make articles that look like this). This BBC interview would likely be an awesome catch if you can find it. The Independent also did a really excellent profile of her in 2011. I don't have access to it, but the Belfast Telegraph covered her in depth. While less detailed, I found coverage in News Letter and Deadline (?).
I couldn't find any reviews of her books besides this (don't have access though), but I'm sure they're out there since I saw her work cited in several different places. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MJL, thanks for your response! The article you pointed out as wrong in your reply was acutally written by me. Can you maybe point out what is wrong about it so that I can write a proper article the next time I try? And how can I reserve you as a reviewer when uploading the draft version for submission? Please, only spend time on this when you actually have time. I don´t want to bother you. Line Redline (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What noise does a fish make?

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Please have some trout in exchange for eating up some of the project's time with a needless RfC at Talk:Pig War (1859)#Casualties (revisited) regarding whether or not a pig is a casualty of war. To [mis]quote Robert Lambert Baynes, I'll say you should try not involve great nations in a war over a squabble about a pig. Best wishes, AlexEng(TALK) 23:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Wikisource/Category

Template:WikiProject Wikisource/Category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 22

Hello everyone, and welcome to the 22nd issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter. This issue will be covering new and updated user scripts from the past seven months (June through December 2021).

Scripts Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!

New scripts New scripts

  • Ahecht:
  • Awesome Aasim:
    • Infiniscroll adds infinite scrolling to user contributions, page histories, and log pages.
    • Quick create allows for the fast creation of red-linked pages with two clicks.
  • Caburum:
    • UTCclock adds a clock displaying the current UTC time.
  • Chlod:
  • DaxServer:
    • BooksToSfn adds a portlet link in Visual Editor's source mode editing, in main namespace articles or in the user's Sandbox. When clicked, it converts one {{cite book}} inside a <ref>...</ref> tag block into an {{Sfn}}.
  • FlightTime:
  • Jon Harald Søby:
    • diffedit enables editing directly from viewing a diff "when, for instance, you notice a tiny mistake deep into an article, and don't want to edit the entire article and re-find that one line to fix that tiny mistake".
    • warnOnLargeFile warns you if you're about to open a very large file (width/height >10,000px or file size >100 MB) from a file page.
  • JPxG:
    • PressPass adds a collection of tools for Newspapers.com including configurable automatic citation generation in five different formats.
    • CurrentSwitcher gives you links on the contribs page to hide duplicate entries, current revisions, rollbacks, huggles, twinkles, and redwarns.
    • TrackSum lets you automatically sum the lengths of tracks in templates like {{track listing}} and get total runtimes.
  • Nardog:
    • CopySectLink adds a button to copy the unencoded page title or section path next to each heading.
    • IPAInput allows you to type in IPA symbols by directly looking at an IPA key like Help:IPA/English and clicking on the symbols.
    • TemplatePreviewGuard warns when you try to use "Preview page with this template" with a page that doesn't transclude the template.
  • NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh:
    • ContribsTabVector adds "Contributions" and "Statistics" tabs to user and user talk pages on the Vector skin.
    • CopyvioChecker adds a "CopyvioCheck" tab to all pages, except Special (Vector skin only).
    • LiveDiffLink is a version of Equazcion's LiveDiffLink which shows a wikilink instead of a URL.
    • QuickDiff (by OneTwoThreeFall at Fandom) lets you quickly view any diff link on a wiki, whether on Recent Changes, contribs pages, history pages, the diff view itself, or elsewhere. For more information, view its page on Fandom.
  • Novem Linguae:
    • DetectSNG scans a list of 1,600 SNG keywords and displays them at the top of the article.
    • NotSoFast highlights recently created articles in the new pages feed, to discourage patrolling them too quickly.
    • UserRightsDiff concisely displays what perm was added or removed when viewing Special:UserRights.
    • VoteCounter displays a rough count of keeps and deletes at XFDs, RFCs, etc.
    • WatchlistAFD automatically watchlists the AFDs of any pages you AFC accept or NPP patrol, to help you calibrate your reviewing.
  • P.T.Đ:
  • Qwerfjkl:
    • editRedirect adds a → link after redirects to edit them.
    • RegExTypoFix, a script for fixing typos, is a wrapper for User:Joeytje50/RETF.js.
    • talkback creates links after user talk page links like this: |C|TB (with the first linking to the user's contributions, and the latter giving the option of sending a {{talkback}} notice). It also adds a [copy] link next to section headers.
  • Rublov:
    • diff-link shows "copy" links on history and contributions pages that copy an internal link to the diff (e.g., Special:Diff/1026402230) to your clipboard when clicked.
  • Rummskartoffel:
    • auto-watchlist-expiry automatically watchlists every page you edit for a user-definable duration (you can still pick a different time using the dropdown, though).
    • generate pings generates the wikitext needed to ping all members of a category, up to 50 editors (the limit defined by MediaWiki).
    • share ExpandTemplates url allows for easy sharing of your inputs to Special:ExpandTemplates. It adds a button that, when clicked, copies a shareable URL to your exact invocation of the page, like this. Other editors do not need to have this script installed in order to access the URL generated.
    • show tag names shows the real names of tags next to their display names in places such as page revision histories or the watchlist.
  • Tol:
  • Venkat TL:
    • ColourContrib color-codes the user contributions page so that pages you've edited last are sharply distinguished from pages where another editor was the last to edit the page.
  • Vukky:

All in all, some very neat scripts were written in these last few months. Hoping to see many more in the next issue -- drop us a line on the talk page if you've been writing (or seeing) anything cool and good. Filling in for DannyS712, this has been jp×g. Take care, and merry Christmas! jp×g 07:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goyim Defense League

I didn't know about this until I got an email from the ADL (not sure why}. Seems to be in the news now.[1] Doug Weller talk 17:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yeah, they're definitely notable (and a lot bigger) at this point. It probably could be an article since the content wouldn't be the same as what the AFD covered. –MJL ‐Talk‐🤶 19:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I'll find time. I've copied it to User:Doug Weller/Goyim Defense League. Not asking you, but do you know anyone who might want to help? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 with Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Throwaway comment

...[2], yes; but, unfortunately, only before the indef block, not after it. *facepalm* Happy New Year to you and yours MJL! SN54129 — Review here please :) 17:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Yeah, looks like they choose suicide by admin instead..
Either way, happy new year to you as well! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor granted

I've granted you the template editor user group. You may need to use it to edit through template editor protection when carrying out clerking tasks. If you don't want the user group, let me know and I can remove it. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency

Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

TheWikiWizard- Jan/Feb 2022

Hi, MJL! Here is the first issue of 2022 for the TheWikiWizard!

Humor

  • Since it's/was Lunar New Year, you can bug your boss at work for that extra fifty dollar bill ;)
  • New Year, New world, Same TWW :P
  • Did you work off that turkey? Don't worry, editing Wikipedia burns calories... I am pretty sure...

Wiki(p/m)edia News

Editor's Notes

  • We are combining two months' issues into one, to try out a new format. This is the first issue of 2022. Happy New Year!
  • That's it for this time, see you in the next issue!
Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here.

Wishing you a good 2022! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was sent to you with the help of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 01:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard- Jan/Feb 2022

Hi, MJL! Here is the first issue of 2022 for the TheWikiWizard!

Humor

  • Since it's/was Lunar New Year, you can bug your boss at work for that extra fifty dollar bill ;)
  • New Year, New world, Same TWW :P
  • Did you work off that turkey? Don't worry, editing Wikipedia burns calories... I am pretty sure...

Wiki(p/m)edia News

Editor's Notes

  • We are combining two months' issues into one, to try out a new format. This is the first issue of 2022. Happy New Year!
  • That's it for this time, see you in the next issue!
Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here.

Wishing you a good 2022! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was sent to you with the help of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tom DeLay series

Template:Tom DeLay series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully...

... your remarks at the page of LL will really make him calm down. The last weer he is really annoying regarding the articles Corofin, County Clare and Corofin (parish). As if he really has no clue about what he is taking about. I can use a break from his antics. The Banner talk 21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Collapsible portal box

Template:Collapsible portal box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  • Christmas Island AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  • Philadelphia GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  • SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  • United Nations Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  • Christmas Island AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  • Philadelphia GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  • SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  • United Nations Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Jschlatt" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jschlatt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Jschlatt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 04:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement next month

Hey talk page watchers!

Something big will be announced next month by me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh exciting! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 17:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pat Ford (activist)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pat Ford (activist) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Pat Ford (activist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A mature Circle of Trust

Circle of Trust at Little Seoul. Don't look at Twitter. El_C 11:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Click

Check the updated code now. The link color is different but I don't know where that color style comes from. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: The link color being different is an improvement imo. Either way, I think the results are good enough for the merge now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary

ANI discussion involving you

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:Signpost team ignores NPOV. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

MorphinBrony (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MorphinBrony: Though I am always happy to see other fans of Homestuck editing Wikipedia, I need to point out to you that you have pretty much exclusively edited on April Fools Day. What that tells me is that you don't really know what is and is not going to be acceptable around here.
While you think your WW3 joke is "funny", I most assuredly did not think so. Like many other people on Wikipedia, I know people who have had their lives ruined because of the Russia-Ukraine War or who are living in active warzones right now. Go read the latest edition of the Signpost if you want to see for yourself. –JJP ‐Talk‐☖ 02:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you. I have never read Homestuck in my life. MorphinBrony (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MorphinBrony: I warned you about the stairs. I told you dog. –JJP ‐Talk‐☖ 02:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that, haha. Well, I haven't updated my userpage in years, and I've only read SBaHJ outside the context of Homestuck because it's quite frankly too long for me to get invested in. Yeah, it's a cop out, I know.
Anyway, sorry to bother you. Next year, I'll try to be funnier. And maybe I should edit here for real more often. MorphinBrony (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day 2022

First of all, nice job for setting up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry Dash (second nomination) for me! The rest of your contributions to the day were hilarious as well.

However since the day is coming to a close can you close the AfD? If possible, have the result be "2.2 released".

Thanks for making April Fools 2022 much funnier! 172.112.210.32 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. –JJP ‐Talk‐☖ 23:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 413 announcement

I started a new YouTube series called "Why Wikipedia Works". More information will be available as soon as I am ready to share. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

© ? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Not really a concern. The phrase isn't original enough to be considered copyrightable. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard - April 2022

Hi, MJL! Here is the April 2022 issue for the TheWikiWizard!

Humour

  • April 1 isn't April fools day if you say it isn't...
  • April Showers should bring May Money flowers! I'd be rich!
  • It's Spring again, Spring out of bed!

Wiki(p/m)edia News

Editor's Notes

  • Sorry for missing the last issue!
  • Have a suggestion or want to help us? Let us know!
  • We wish all those in Ukraine and those affected by the war safety and peace :-)
Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here.

See you in the next issue! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 19:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent to you automatically by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Robotics." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Robotics. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Robotics. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi! Recently, you offered mediation and advice to me regarding a couple incidents. While they are not yet resolved, I wanted to extend thanks for both your critical eye towards my work and cordiality through that affair. If you ever wish to lend more insight into recommendations towards me and my editing, let me know. You earned a lot of respect for your patience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Always happy to be of help! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Just wondering, but is it ok if I just cease my involvement in that conversation? It's been a week and not gotten anywhere and repeatedly I've had to refrain from posting things that would have made things worse. Is that bad form, or should I just vote in the survey you posted and leave it at that? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: You are of course free to walk away from a discussion. WP:VOLUNTARY and all that. ;D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the recent disputes on Syro-Malabar Church and Eastern Catholic Churches

Hi, I want to clarify one thing. I am only seeking the restoration of status quo ante in both articles.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaumrambista: It's not that cut-and-dry. For a large part of the article's history, the date on Eastern Catholic Churches was set to 1663 (and earlier).
When PPEMES first added the years to the table, the date was listed as 1599. Another user later that year removed the date and claimed the churches were never separated. An anonymous user in 2017 then added a note which said the date was 1599. In 2018, a different anonymous user said the date was 1663. This stayed the case for the next two full years
In 2020, an anonymous user changed it to 1559 and then to 1599. It stayed at 1599 until 2021 when someone changed it 1567 and then to 1552. This was the case until the very next month when they decided it should be 1923 instead.
The date was again changed this year in March when Aby John Vannilam reverted it back to 1663. Eleven days later, a user with a suspiciously similar name to Aby John Vannilam (Aby john vannilam) put it back to 1923 only to get reverted by Goodone121 in favour of 1663. Finally, on 14 April 2022, as you may be aware, a series of edits took place flipping back and forth from 1923 and 1663.
Therefore, by all accounts, the status quo ante year could either be 1663 or 1923. However, the former (1663) does have a longer (and more stable) history as the establishment year. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I really don't think so. Actually, the original version was 1599, wasn't it! 1923 is the date that is consistent with the other entries there, since the hierarchy was recognised only in 1923. Meanwhile, the 1663 date appears to be a sort of pov propaganda because none of the sources cited actually back that date. The Syro-Malabar Church faced a schism following Coonan Cross Oath of 1653. The non-catholic faction claims that the Catholic faction came into being in 1663 and the catholics argue that non-catholic faction was founded in 1665. We cannot support either claim unless we have reliable sources which explicitly support one of the versionQaumrambista (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaumrambista: Pbritti has already presented a source for 1663. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity per the assumption of good faith. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I did not question the reliability of the book or the authenticity of its content. The problem is the book does not support the argument they have placed. You can find in the same book clear mentioning of 1923. It is noteworthy that the year 1663 is not at all explicitly marked.Qaumrambista (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. I have not alleged that Pbritti is doing propaganda here. When I reverted the year from 1663 to 1923, they undone it. They now seem to be clinging on to it, regardless of what the cited source actually say. I am saying this because the book itself clearly gives the year 1923. Qaumrambista (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaumrambista: Do you have the page number for when Attwater mentions 1923? If so, you should add a citation to it on Eastern Catholic Churches. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: certainly. Page 214. I cannot edit that article. I have been blocked from editing there for one month.Qaumrambista (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Concern regarding Draft:Emily Hall Tremaine

Information icon Hello, MJL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Emily Hall Tremaine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emily Hall Tremaine has been accepted

Emily Hall Tremaine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, MJL. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  1. New York (state) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
  2. Christmas Island AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
  3. Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
  4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
  5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
  6. United States Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
  7. England Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portal talk 2

Template:Portal talk 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talk update by user

Template:Talk update by user has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fun game

Write whatever you want until 18 May 2022, subject to the rules in the edit notice. I'll then make a video reading your script in two weeks. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Creating and promoting a public video beginning with the clear image of a prominent professional Wikipedian and former Foundation official with the text, "If you know who this is, you have a problem," is not likely to be seen as a sign of maturity or good judgement. 2600:387:C:6C34:0:0:0:5 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke about how insulated the Wikipedia community can be? Like, if you are able to accurately identify a Wikipedia micro-celebrity with no hints or context, then you might be a little too absorbed by Wikipedia (or at least that was the idea). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello MJL,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 818 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard - May 2022

Hey, MJL! Here is the May 2022 issue for the TheWikiWizard!

Humor

  • What do May Showers bring?
  • May the 4th be with you doesn't work anymore, but I can say it again in less than a year!
  • If you love Wikipedia, and are editing it, is it a conflict of interest?

Wiki(P/M)edia News

  • A discussion took place in regards to the desktop design for certain Wikis. You can find more information here.
  • Tamzin, has had a successful RFA! Congrats!
  • Check out this Conversation that will be hosted by the team "Community Resilience and Sustainability"! You can find out more details about the meeting by clicking on the link.

Editor's Notes

  • We have a IRC Channel! Come by and say Hi! You can find us on Libra.Chat under the channel name #TheWikiWizard connect


Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here.

See you in the next issue! (Remember, you can help us write our next issue!) --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 00:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I stumbled acroos yor talk page thanks to your little fun expirment about a Script for YouTube NJTFan22 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NJTFan22: Sorry that I couldn't include your addition. I hope you enjoyed the video though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A dinosaur for you

The requested dino
As requested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, MJL. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Nomination of Emily Hall Tremaine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emily Hall Tremaine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Hall Tremaine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Hey! Hope you're doing well. I believe there has been a misunderstanding in this discussion, so I would greatly appreciate your assistance as a mentor: User talk:Golden#What BRD is not — Golden call me maybe? 21:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring / mentoring

In good faith, I'm opening this discussion per the following reason: Since you were so firm on my talk page that you monitor Golden's edits and will let them know if they're wrong, you shouldn't have missed edits like this; A) Shushi wasn't occupied, B) There is no such thing as "partial revert of a sock", this is highly dubious and selective editing; either you revert the whole sock edit or not, end of story. In any case, "occupation" isn't the term to use here in fact it's POV, Shushi has nothing to do with Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Golden should/is aware of this at the very least because they voted in the article move. I'd expect you enact on your words and let them know to not repeat POV edits like this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: I did miss that (only human), so thank you for sharing that with me.
@Golden: ZG is right. Do not partially revert socks. WP:BANREVERT does not apply here because: this edit was made before CY was banned (and contrary to popular belief, reverting socks should only be done for edits made after the sockmaster was banned). Regardless, if there was parts of the edit you disagreed with, then you should've just made them as normal edits.
Also, as ZG said, please be careful with using potentially-POV terms like occupation. This applies even if you are reverting a banned user since we are always responsible for the edits we make (regardless if we have a specific reason for them or not). If you aren't 100% confident a term should be used, don't make the change. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJL&oldid=1093271178"