Jump to content

User talk:FeRDNYC/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, FeRDNYC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jac16888Talk 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

[edit]

Hi FeRD NYC,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ping

[edit]

If you wanted to delete the section you tagged at the chaps article, I wouldn't cry or revert you; I'm sure not going to bother to go source it. That said, from past experience with same, it's apt to be readded later if removed, so maybe if you wanted to trim but source it, you would save the rest of us some drama wars. I just won't get into how much the terminology annoys me (all chaps are that way, if they weren't, they'd be called trousers!  :-P ) Up to you! :-) Montanabw(talk) 01:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out Montanabw. Honestly, it was mostly the use of the word "colloquially" that gave me pause. While I agree that "assless chaps" is a (misguided) thing, it's mostly used by clueless people with no idea what they're talking about (at least in my experience), which I'm not sure elevates it to the level of "colloquially".
Under other circumstances I'd simply Be Bold and word the sentence differently so that it doesn't use "colloquially", and that'd be that. Consulting the source reference(s) as a terminology/descriptive guide can be a good way of doing that fairly and in a manner that will satisfy other editors, and therein lies the rub. No amount of re-wording can change the fact that the entire claim is completely unsourced, and since it isn't built upon any of the other source material for the article it really needs something to support it.
WP:Verifiability is absolute: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
With the sentence already present in the article, I didn't see a reason to remove it immediately, which is why I tagged it [citation needed]. Hopefully, someone will be able to come up with a Reliable Source on "assless chaps", and can incorporate the source information into the article.
If not, though, it will probably have to come out eventually, because as it stands right now the claim is entirely original research. As far as getting added back in, people are constantly trying to insert things into Wikipedia articles that they "know" are true, but can't back up. And they keep trying and trying, no matter how many times it's deleted. The fact that someone else will insert something into an article doesn't change anything about whether or not the information is properly sourced / verifiable / valid. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree, but I can't fight every battle on wikipedia, so if you want to share the small task of watchlisting the article, I'd be glad (and so would the rest of the small but dedicated cadre of editors who work on equine and American west topics) to welcome you to the crew. While you're at it, adding whip and crop (implement) to your vandalism patrol watchlist would also be valued. Montanabw(talk) 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, FeRD NYC. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FeRD NYC I'm Bob Zeller, the fellow currently making changes as SaveOurHistory to the Civil War Trust and related pages.

The intent of my work is to update the Trust Wikipedia entry and other related entries with the latest factual information about Trust activities, primarily its acquisitions of battlefield land. The non-profit makes more than 30 new purchases every year, and the latest factual information on the Trust's Wikipedia page dated to 2014 and needed or needs to be updated. This is my first assignment as a writer to make changes on Wikipedia, so obviously I'm learning as I go.

I have placed a Conflict of Interest statement related to being paid for my work on the Usertalk page but am unsure whether this is adequate. I am happy to make it adequate and place it where ever it needs to go.

Next, I plan to go through the text with the intent of removing any language that smacks of puffery or promotion. As a historian, I generally seek primary source information as the best information, so it's a bit confusing to me to see restrictions against primary source material and to get flagged for it. I presume the potential problem is that anyone can put up a website for an "organization" and fill it up with bogus facts and figures and then cite the website on the Wikipedia page.

The challenge I face is that I know of no other source than the Trust itself for the factual listing of battlefields where land has been saved and the number of acres, which is largely where I have thus far made changes, updating acres saved at some battlefields and adding new states and sites where land has been saved since the Trust Wikipedia page was last updated. Any comprehensive listing of these facts and figures at a secondary source would no doubt simply rely on the primary source I have cited, which is the comprehensive "Saved Land" list on the Trust's website. This was the same source cited for the existing facts on the Trust Wikipedia when I began to make changes. There were no warning flags that it was a problem, so I wasn't anticipating problems by continuing to cite this same source.

Is there a threshold of reliability that would allow the factual information at the Trust website be considered reliable for use as a source at Wikipedia?

I'm confused as well about the process of making changes. It appears that I'm not to make actual changes myself, but propose them on the Civil War Trust Wikipedia talk page. So who then actually makes the changes? The work involved time-consuming detail work making some 30 or more factual changes, each at very specific places on the page. Is someone else expected to come along and take the time it took to make each individual factual change? If I am not supposed to make the changes myself, what is the proper procedure to ensure that the changes that I request and wish to make are promptly and correctly made? As I understand it, anyone but me (or someone else with a conflict) can remove the template and warnings you placed at the top of the Civil War Trust page. However, is the proper procedure to get you to sign off on the corrective changes and remove the warnings?

I am trying to read the various information pages and learn from those, but there is a mountain of information on many different pages and I'm still working to sort through it all. My primary objective in making changes is to update facts and figures that are three years out of date. While most of my work thus far is on the Civil War Trust page itself, my assignment included updating a variety of subject pages, such as American Civil War, for which I added a new subject heading, "Battlefield Preservation" and added two factual paragraphs. The first is sourced to an offline published history. The second is sourced to a history of the preservation movement I just completed on behalf of the Trust. Should I add a disclosure to the note itself that I'm also the one who wrote the Wikipedia entry?

The Civil War Trust, in partnership with the National Park Service, has expanded the land preservation mission to include battlefields of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 and has already made at least four acquisitions. So my assignment also involves adding factual material to this effect at the related Wikipedia pages. Finally, Wikipedia pages exist for nearly all of the 132 American battlefields where the Trust has saved land. For quite a few battlefields, the land acquired by the Trust is the only land thus far saved. Working for the Trust, I wish to supplement the Wikipedia pages for most of these battles to include the fact that the Trust has saved land at that location and how many acres, with the intent, at least up to now, of sourcing it to the Trust's "Saved Land" site.

Thanks for your input.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

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

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

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

List of mashup songs

[edit]

FYI, you're not going to get through to that IP editor. Edits like that one are a hallmark of the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal, who has made similar vandal edits over manymanymany pages over a period of years, Just revert (and maybe report to AIV) and move on. Happy editing. --Finngall talk 17:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: LOL, wow. Thanks for the pointer. I have to imagine whoever-it-is watching that page with glee, too, thinking "I'm faaaaaamous!". Ugh. (Really does seem like there's enough ammo there for an IP range block, unless those (pretty narrow) source ranges also correspond to some public space that also hosts lots of active non-vandals. Well, maybe someday...) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP ranges have been analyzed and they're too wide to stop the vandal without also hitting a lot of innocent anonymous editors. But whoever it is, they've never responded to other editors, never used an edit summary, and never given any reaction to any blocks or discussion of their activities other than to get a new IP address and continue after a seemingly random interval. (shrug) Nothing to do except keep an eye out and play Whac-A-Mole as needed. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall talk 18:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Battlefield Trust

[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you tagged American Battlefield Trust and left a talk page message a while back because of the POV content. The main contributor is a declared paid editor, and while I appreciate this is a registered non-profit, the article reads like a webpage and is mostly unsourced or self-sourced. I'd like to take a hatchet to most of the article. Just saying. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Hey, thanks for reaching out. Yeah, I'm afraid I sort of let that fall by the wayside. I'm glad to hear that the user in question has (now) declared their conflict of interest, they hadn't even done that at the time I originally stepped into things. That's a move in the right direction, I suppose, but it sounds like they still haven't really read WP:COI and think that merely declaring their conflict gives them carte blanche to edit the page, instead of (at least as I interpret it) basically meaning they have a responsibility not to.
I'm afraid at this time I have other projects outside of Wikipedia that are monopolizing most of my time, so I'm not sure how much help I can be with this, but you have my full support (for all that's worth) since as far as I'm concerned that article is and always has been one massive violation of WP:COI. So I say swing the hatchet, and swing it hard. And if you need any help building consensus on the talk page, to get the changes to stick, please feel free to ping me. Thanks! -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

The user in question has a history of WP:OWN. Your edits were fine, an improvement even. Unfortunately, I don't have the bandwidth to argue at the moment. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: Yeah, I very quickly got that impression from looking over the article history and the talk page archive. It's a light week for me, and since my edit somehow managed to function as a WP:OWN trap despite not being one (I made the edit in good faith and at face value, having never even heard of the other editor until they reverted me), I figured I'd spend a few cycles on having this out now, over this inconsequential edit, in the hopes that it might make things a bit easier or more streamlined the next time it comes up over a point that does matter. But I totally don't blame you one bit for not wanting to get involved. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Isla Vista Killings

[edit]

Whoops. Misread the edit summary as an addition. Thanks for fixing. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, FeRDNYC. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

On the Greta Thunberg page, you wrote "as noted in edit summary offsite weblinks in article body are not permitted".

On the WP:Weblinks page, it says Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked). What can be linked takes the reader to this heading which says "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." The link I added took the reader to this site which is the official webpage of the conference I linked to. It doesn't say that such links need to be made using a citation. Do you agree - or am I missing something here? Notagainst (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Notagainst, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think that the key point (perhaps we should actually write it in that section of the guideline you quote!) is that external links don't belong in the middle of an article. So this is good:
This article is about something or another

==External links==
* [https://www.example.com Relevant website]
But this is not:
This article is about [https://www.example.com something or another]
Does that make sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. I have quoted a WP policy that appears to justify putting links in the article under certain circumstances. You seem to have expressed a personal preference - but you have not provided a link to a wiki policy to back up your preference. Are you saying I should ignore wiki policy...? Notagainst (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where in wiki policy does it say that external links don't belong in the middle of an article under any circumstances. As far as I can see - it doesn't. I can only make editing decisions based on what WP policy currently says - not what it might say if someone rewrites it. Wouldn't you agree? Notagainst (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Notagainst: That would be point 2 of "Important points to remember" on the page you linked to, Wikipedia:External Links...

With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.
— WP:ELPOINTS

References

  1. ^ Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.
As the footnote makes clear, the "rare exceptions" are links to other Wikimedia properties. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(To continue that line of thought, an External Links entry for the conference site would also not be appropriate in the Greta Thunberg article, as the article is about Greta. In an article about the conference, a link in an applicable infobox or External Links would be appropriate. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I got it. Notagainst (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam National Football Team

[edit]

First off all, the editor "Nguonnhanluc853" make the initial edit which add a large amount of content without discussion hence I reverted his edit to revision for discussion or remake them to make sure they remain in Wikipedia standard. My edit is of large amount content removal but it is to remove those yet to discussed added content. Also, my revert state clear reasons and valid ones as to why those changes are needed immediately. Do you sir not have the eyes to read???? Cranepda (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cranepda: Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Nobody needs permission from you or anyone else to add content to an article, and they do not need to "discuss" their changes first. You are the one who needs to begin a discussion regarding that content on the Talk page, which you Did. Not. Do. Your reverts would carry much more weight if you had attempted to seek consensus instead of edit-warring. You presumably won't be able to start that conversation now, since you've already been blocked under other accounts as well as your IP for exactly this behavior. I'll now toddle off and add this ID to your existing sockpuppet / block-evasion case, just to drive the point home that you're the one behaving in an unacceptable manner here. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you should have said is: "Nobody needs permission from you or anyone else to add content to an article, EVEN IF THAT CONTENT IS VANDALISM". Very Funny, well then he wouldn't need YOUR permission to revert those vandalizing edits, either. "Consensus"? WATCH THE TALK PAGE and then you can say that word again. Your reply literally carries NO counter-arguments and is evasive to HIS POINTS.27.67.191.178 (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, FeRDNYC. Your justification related to doesn't work like that isn't applicable in this case. I can argue further and further down your throat regarding this issue27.67.191.178 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia won silver in WC 2018

[edit]

Why you deleted my work? 21st june 2018 is day when Croatia crashed Argentina 3-0. 11st june 2018 is day when Croatia smashed England 2-1 and deleted "It's coming home!". So, if that is correct information, why you deleted my work? I would be thankful on your answer.

IZNAD SVIH - HRVATSKA! 98🥈🇭🇷18 Šaholjubac (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Šaholjubac: I'm sure it is correct information. And it's information that's very relevant to the Croatia football team article. However, to be included in the "events" section of the days-of-the-year articles, items must meet the criteria presented at WP:DOY. (Not WP:OTDRULES, as I incorrectly linked in my edit summary. I apologize for that mistake.) The summary for those criteria reads:

Include items which would have belonged in any theoretical almanac written in the prevailing years after the event, or in a nutshell:

  • Accomplishments in the arts and sciences as well as social milestones are particularly important.
  • The rise and fall of societies, and events relevant to that, matter.
  • Notable social movements, holidays, major disasters, and the births and deaths of persons who mattered to society are also listed.
Sporting event outcomes are rarely of enduring historical significance — meaning, they are significant moments in history for society as a whole, not just historic events for the team, franchise, league, or even sport in question. (There are, of course, some exceptions to this.) But you'll be happy to know that I similarly reverted an entry for Croatia's ultimate World Cup loss to France, as that should never have been included either. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to here that. However, for Croatia that was most important thing (miracle) since War. And Croatia did deserve to be world champion, but that is not important for this conversation.

Živila Hrvatska Šaholjubac (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hear* Šaholjubac (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Davis

[edit]

Greetings. I noticed you reverted my work on the Mark Davis wiki. The cited article is incorrect. I work for the Oakland Raiders. His assistant asked me to make the changes for him. Not sure how I can go about proving the information. Any assistance you can provide would help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:580:2EBB:F8E2:5A4D:476C:2A5 (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:641:580:2EBB:F8E2:5A4D:476C:2A5 and 208.64.184.130: Thanks for reaching out.
I removed the edits simply because they were sweeping, unverifiable, seemingly at odds with the existing sources for the article's content, and (by virtue of all the former) therefore in violation of Wikipedia's special rules for BLP ("Biographies of Living Persons") articles, which require us to take special pains not to let unsourced, unverifiable information slip through the editorial process and make it into live articles.
As I say, I reverted simply because it was a BLP article and I would've reverted any such large-scale edit unaccompanied by verifiable citations to reliable sources.
However, the information that you were making those edits at the behest of (indirectly) the subject of the article changes things completely. As a paid contributor with a very clear conflict of interest on the subject, you really shouldn't be directly editing any articles even tangentially related to the Raiders organization, any of its employees, or the NFL at all. And attempting to do so from an IP account ("anonymously", effectively), without making the required conflict-of-interest disclosures prior to editing, is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's Paid-contribution disclosure policy and, ultimately, of the site's Terms of Use.
I strongly urge you to read the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide", which outlines the parameters under which paid editors are permitted to contribute to Wikipedia. Once you've made the required disclosures and publicly established the nature of your relationship with the article's subject, then we can discuss article details and sourcing of information. But there are no parameters under which an IP user can be permitted to have any influence over the content of an article about their employer. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of a Wikipedia-namespace conversation

[edit]

Continued from: Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#"Review your changes" tricks me into submitting too early

Whatamidoing (WMF) had written:

Argh, the table-formatted template! So many {{ambox}} templates and edit notices have that. Just try opening Today's Featured Article on a narrow screen to see what kind of problems that creates. There are some things MediaWiki does very well (its support for different languages is amazing), but figuring out what size an image ought to be is not one of them. Mile-wide tables can be a problem even on desktop systems, but I think those are usually a user-based issue (I just want to add one more little column... Who will even notice on a table that's already so wide?).

Have you seen the Wikipedia:TemplateStyles work? It's supposed to be a significant improvement for mobile readers (plus some performance and security benefits – an excellent project all around).

@Whatamidoing (WMF): I noticed when editing the documentation for {{talk quote block}} and {{talk quote inline}} that they were now implemented using TemplateStyles, though I didn't look too much into it beyond that. Speaking of Visual Editor issues, though, I have also noticed that TemplateStyles aren't applied in Visual Editor's Preview, so (for instance) you see the talk quote templates without their font changes or green background. 😉
TemplateStyles are definitely a nice development, though. One of the biggest issues in doing the mobile-friendly content redesign on that wiki I mentioned is that I'm not an Administrator, so I'm stuck working with only the (rather outdated) skin CSS that's already present on the wiki. (CSS that, for example, doesn't have the columns ol, columns ul, columns dl { margin-top: 0; } fix to keep lists from looking weird when formatted multi-column because the first column gets pushed down by the default margin-top.)
So, beyond the limited style rules already present in the skin CSS, I've had to do everything entirely in the content itself, using only inline styles — no media queries! CSS Grid and CSS Flexbox have become my two best friends, because they can be applied entirely through inline style= CSS.
Still, writing mobile-friendly web content without media queries? If responsive design under normal circumstances is like trying to plan 5 simultaneous parties in the same room, doing it entirely through inline styles is like trying to plan a funeral without knowing who died. (And now I wish I could hold a funeral for that analogy.)
Just try opening Today's Featured Article on a narrow screen Oh, man! That is hilariously poor, wow. And it sort of amazes me that even the Main Page suffers from the same sort of thing, in the Vector skin. We also use a Wikipedia-style Main Page, which was one of my primary targets for the mobile-friendly updates. I'm fairly happy that even with one hand tied behind my back, I managed to take our main page from how it looked in August to the way it looks today. The differences are minor and largely superficial on the desktop, as intended. But on a mobile display, or even a resized desktop browser window? Worlds apart, almost a question of readable vs. unreadable. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought that the Main Page here was supposed to have been fixed by now. Someone was working on it (again). If you want to see another intentionally responsive Main Page, then look at w:fr:Main Page. They redesigned theirs to be more mobile-friendly a couple of years ago. I don't know how much of it depends upon sitewide JS or CSS, though. (Is there an active admin around? Can't they give you sysop rights, at least temporarily, or make a few edits for you, to get some better tools in place?)
I think that the TFA box wants something like a drop cap, so we don't lose the left half of the screen to an image that you'd have to scroll down to see (among other problems). That whole system obviously needs to be overhauled. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

[edit]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

[edit]
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeRDNYC/Archive_1&oldid=1184170360"