User talk:PBS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Philip Baird Shearer)
Jump to: navigation, search
Noia 64 filesystems home blue.png
Crystal 128 kaddressbook.png
Crystal Clear app kaddressbook.png
Kpdf bookish.svg
User Page

Talk Page








Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive344#User:PBS reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: No violation) -- PBS (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Battles of Zürich[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you reverted two sets of changes I made to two articles on the First Battle of Zurich and Second Battle of Zurich. In those changes I both renamed the articles, to First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich, and also corrected the spelling of all the references to the city of Zürich within the article. As the correct spelling for the city of Zürich as far as WP:EN was concerned was established in a series of RMs (and with much fire & noise) back in 2013 (see Talk:Zürich), I rather thought that this was, by now, an uncontroversial move. However, as it obviously isn't, I have now raised RMs for both articles. I have left the spelling of Zürich as Zurich in references to the names of the battles, but have rereverted the spelling where it is the city that is being talked about, as that is well established and (in the absense of yet another RM) there should be no doubt on this. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

wstitle parameter ordering[edit]

I noticed that earlier in the year you had made some (much needed) edits: [1], [2], that give some EB1911 wstitle parameters in "first middle last" order, instead of "last, first middle" as in the actual EB1911 title. The links work because Llewelynll had previously established redirects. Still, it doesn't look right to me; shouldn't the text of the link be the same as the article name? I fixed the Angerstein one before I realized it was you.

The EB9 links are a whole other matter; the Wikisource name is "F M L" although the article itself is "L, F M". David Brooks (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it (I think). I can fairly easily write code that will identify articles that you changed in that date range, have one of the 1911 templates, and have a wstitle without commas that indicates a WS redlink or redirect (phew). As to the ref/harvid things - that's lower on the priority list (it's not actually wrong, just silly) so we'll probably get to it some time in the 24th century. By the way, I prefer kudos. Kudzu doesn't grow here in the northeast anyway :-) David Brooks (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! How did you know it's my birthday? :-) David Brooks (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyway... I found 53 candidate articles from that date range (excluding the 3 I already fixed). Most of them are due to links to wikisource EB1911 redirects, but there are a few true redlinks. I can fix them some time (probably not this week), or leave them to you. Of course, the redirects are pretty low priority because they at least do the right thing. See my sandbox. David Brooks (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]


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

Administrator changes

added Happyme22Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rayment etc[edit]


I have just been looking again at Template:Rayment, and its associates {Rayment-bd}}, {{Rayment-bt}}, {{Rayment-hc}}, {{Rayment-hc-ie}}, {{Rayment-pc}}.

I see that it was you who tagged them in 2012 as self-published etc, e.g.[3].

I strongly disagree with that assessment. This isn't the place for the substantive discussion, but I was wondering if there was any discussion anywhere before you deprecated the templates? If so, please can you give me a link to it?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found it myself. Notification at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_116#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages of substantive discussion at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive_10#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages, as well as a parallel discussion at Template talk:Rayment#Reliability.
I see no way that there was a consensus there to treat Rayment as unreliable. Imperfect, yes; unreliable, no.
I note too that neither discussion was formally closed.
Unless there is evidence of a consensus, I propose to remove the self-published and better source tags. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

copied from a message posted to mytalk[4]:

Copied from user talk:BrownHairedGirl#Template:Rayment

There is a discussion at Template talk:Rayment#Reliability which includes a link which I have updated to the archive: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 10#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages that took place in 2012, and to which you contributed. That archived section includes a collapsed list of links to 16 previous discussions.

As the talk page of the template is fairly low volume, I would suggest that if you want to discuss it further that you start a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. If you do please put a see also at the top and link to the old archived discussion and please inform me about it.

You have just beaten me to it. But I will leave this here. -- PBS (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page "Unless there is evidence of a consensus, I propose to remove the self-published and better source tags." Please do not do that, but if you want to change them then get a consensus to do so by starting a conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. For example what is your evidence that the pages are not self-published? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS, you have just pissed me off replying on my talk when my editnotice specifically asks you not to do that, and a furthe little red box at the bottom of the page repeats the message ... and then by keeping on editing my talk, generating edit conflicts as I tried to close the discussion here. Per WP:MULTI, please keep discussions in one place ... and on my talk, pls respect my editnotice. </well-fed-up> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS, the issue here is that the 2012 discussions reveal no consensus for the changes you made. If you want the templates to be tagged in that way, feel free to open a discussion in seek a consensus ... and this time, let someone uninvolved close it, rather than just acting unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your unwanted conversion of an RfC to an RM[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Batternut (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:ANI#Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM among neutral adminsneutrals is leaning decidedly against you. More contributions may of course be made, or you may decide to appeal at arbcom or somewhere, but perhaps for now you might consider reverting your RfC->RM conversion edits. Batternut (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Nee inexperienced users don't talk about Arbcom appeals. Batternut is no rookie and knows exactly how he is trying to shoehorn a major change against all consensus via a two step process. Legacypac (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I am doubly flattered! First by PBS's "Machiavellian" suggestion, and now with LP's "no rookie"! My edit count is now 5,061, which seems like a ton to me, though nothing to PBS's, and probably your too LP. Listen people, I know you both have put in shed-loads of work on this ISIL article. I just think that, though PBS has done loads of good for the article, this move was wrong. Anyway, if I do ever kick off an RM which looks likely to succeed it will get a heap of good scrutiny as well as the noise - so it might as well be a sensible RM with sensible debate. Then if/when shot down, it can be followed with another moratorium. Anyway, what prompted me to write - everyone knows about arbcom because every election triggers a huge banner about it at the top of every article; there's no escaping it! Batternut (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
PBS is uninvolved in the ISIL topic. I'm still a major contributor to the topic and have a high degree of understanding of the issues. The editors that really understand the topic from working on it generally insist on keeping the existing name. Uninvolved editors see something in the news and jump to the idea we need a name change. Precedent shows your name change has been rejected many times. Given nothing has changed since the last round of failed renames, your latest efforts are disruptive and pointless. You also may not realize that this is really a proposal to rename several dozen pages and would involve thousands of edite to effect, if we are to remain internally consistent. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
"Nothing has changed" - I've refuted that already. 1000's of edits, that's an argument to be avoided, but don't worry, rest your poor smoking keyboard, I'll do it! Batternut (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Domino effect[edit]

 Berean pours PBS a really tall one
Bottoms up

Hey PBS, I saw your edit this morning in my watchlist and it jarred my memory and allowed me to make a connection leading to the filing of this SPI case. Bet you a beer that's him. ;)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it's a really hot day so I've poured you a tall one.Face-wink.svg
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added AnarchyteGeneralizationsAreBadCullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed CpromptRockpocketRambo's RevengeAnimumTexasAndroidChuck SMITHMikeLynchCrazytalesAd Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

User Name[edit]

How do you have that user name? It is misleading that you might be editing on behalf of Public Broadcasting Service. Spshu (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation styles[edit]

Your advice would be good if it was an option in the Cite drop-down list which offers web, news, book and journal. There is no cite web, which you wish me to use. So how do I follow your example? Shipsview (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "PBS", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because PBS is a well known non profit, so using it as a username implies shared use. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tornado chaser, check the history on this user's user page. You'll see where the three letters come from. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
PBS has explained that these letters are their initials, so I don't think there is a problem with the username. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

House of[edit]


the term "House of" in English as a general rule only applies to ruling and sovereign dynasties, not some noble family. Otherwise any family could call themselves "House of" and where would we end with that? Thank you for your understanding. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, see WP:BOLD. Within the Holy Roman Empire by law no one was sovereign except the emperor himself. The same applies to Kings of England, France, etc. and their dynasties. Therefore we have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley"? Giving everyone (including their dog as you said) a "House of" format is out of bounds and needs to be corrected. Gryffindor (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can we please keep the conversation on your talk page, Gryffindor? thank you--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, if these are families that were not ruling, hereditary dynasties of a sovereign and independent country, they are not a "House of", as opposed to the Windsors, Romanovs, Medici, Bourbons, etc. I already gave the example with the Wellesley family. On what basis are you arguing in favour of using it? Gryffindor (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with Gryffindor on this point. In the discussion about moving the pages this Library of Congress heading manual tends to back up his point of view. [5]. Common name may be important but so is consistency. There are enough sources to point towards the fact that House of is a usage reserved for royal families and not for any noble family. In French Maison de is only used for ruling dynasties [6]. Domdeparis (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Move the conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#House of -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not hyphenating the compound modifier "light[-]rail" (something), just because "we don't do that"?[edit]

Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.

Category:Pages containing London Gazette template with parameter supp set to y has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Pages containing London Gazette template with parameter supp set to y, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. МандичкаYO 😜 06:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added NakonScott
removed SverdrupThespianElockidJames086FfirehorseCelestianpowerBoing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.


  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox noble house[edit]

Thank you for all of your very thoughtful edits on various articles, and I would like to get your opinion about a matter. An editor is proposing to merge Template:Infobox noble house into Template:Infobox family. After looking at those two templates, I noticed that Template:Infobox noble house has many fields (parameters) that do not appear in Template:Infobox family, and vice versa. Some examples are: Parent house, Titles, Styles, Founded, Founder, Current head, Motto, Dissolution, and Cadet branches. Most of those fields can be very important for articles about noble families, but they are usually not applicable at all to non-noble families. If the two templates were fully merged, I feel that some editors could get confused when confronted with a large number of fields to choose from. As a result, a future editor of the template might well decide to delete those "noble" fields from Template:Infobox family at some point, because those fields don't generally apply to non-noble families. Because of these concerns, my feeling is that it would be better to keep Template:Infobox noble house and Template:Infobox family as separate templates, one for use with noble families and the other for non-noble families. That way, each template can serve its specific purpose with the fields that are the most appropriate ones. You have in-depth knowledge about all things noble and royal, and I have great respect for your opinion, so I would be grateful if you could please let me know your very brief thoughts on this issue. Many thanks for your kind help! -- Blairall (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedai:edited mercilessly[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Wikipedai:edited mercilessly requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

England during 1650[edit]


I am writing a book that is set in Europe during the year 1650, and I would like to discover more about the Third English Civil War and how it affected the modern day region of North East England. Any information about daily life there during this time would also be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks for your help!

~ Occurrence of Magic Occurrence of Magic (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey[edit]


Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Protect Machine?[edit]

Can you put some protection on Machine? Apparently a bunch of kids are repeatedly adding "and hats" to the lede of Machine -- about a dozen times in the last couple of days, and ongoing. Thanks. --A D Monroe III (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

After protection expired, it appears to be starting again. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dud Dudley[edit]

I offered a tentative translation of the text on the talk page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Borodino[edit]

Hey I wanted to work on the Battle of Borodino and see if we could work this up to FA status. I've also asked Autieruth if she'd be interested? Care to join in?Tirronan (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


I've withdrawn my bot since I think WP:CFD can handle it with Cydebot. However, take a look at this. Technically, all of those need to be undone since the MOS changed. I'll start working on a bigger proposal. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. There are literally tens of thousands of categories that have issues. The majority of them can be weeded out as being consecutive, but the weeding out would take forever. So, I will just go ahead and do it piece by piece as necessary. I'm going to focus on the English MPs for now. I can look at British and UK MPs in the future once this one is done. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll be moving the categories once I am done with that set. This will automatically leave behind a redirect for that category. I'm only going to focus on UK/Irish MPs until I can get a larger proposal going. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done with English MPs. Let me know if you need anything further. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style: Ireland "not part of the Empire"[edit]

I suggest you look at Poynings' Law, which makes it clear who was boss! See wp:duck. Though I suppose to be fair it had a status one step up from New England (taxation without representation etc).

I understand what you say about ease of editing and from a very detached viewpoint I accept that it is more readable - but it does so at the expense of precision (who led, who followed). I expect almost everyone who reads the article will not be misled so I won't revert. But doesn't make it any less silly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Boing! said ZebedeeAnsh666Ad Orientem
removed TonywaltonAmiDanielSilenceBanyanTreeMagioladitisVanamonde93Mr.Z-manJdavidbJakecRam-ManYelyosKurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crowland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudson (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Hudson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Template talk:Cite DNB.
Message added 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Nevéselbert 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Maint templates usage[edit]

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 Copyedit template. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk: 1[edit]

Hi PBS, I don't really see a need to create an archive page as the warnings are available in the talk page history and the blocks in the block log. Even with an archive I definitely don't see any need to protect it, especially at extended confirmed level. Could you please unprotect it? Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Embedded citations[edit]

I know that embedded citations are outdated but couldn't the link be kept in the navbox in some "historical" section since it's still a page relevant to the template?★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


I've never seen an ahnentafel formatted this way before: it looks like the format of tree used to show the descendants of an individual rather than an individual's ancestors (see the examples at Succession to the British throne). Can you please show me examples of this style of ahnentafel from reliable sources? Thanks. DrKay (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Mirror of template:Tree list/final branch -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added LonghairMegalibrarygirlTonyBallioniVanamonde93
removed Allen3Eluchil404Arthur RubinBencherlite

Technical news



  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news



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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, PBS. 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)

Nomination for merging of Template:Ahnentafel-compact4[edit]

Template:Ahnentafel-compact4 has been nominated for merging with Template:Ahnentafel-compact5. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Municipalities of Luxembourg[edit]

Even current WP:UE is ignored anyway. (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)