User talk:RL0919

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blue Flame (play)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Blue Flame (play) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blue Flame (play)[edit]

The article The Blue Flame (play) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Blue Flame (play) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fountainhead GA[edit]

I did a "drive-by" glance at Fountainhead. For your consideration, can we get English translations of the French reviews? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any of them have published translations. I used online translation primarily, then cross-checked with a French speaker to confirm I hadn't misrepresented the cited points. If any of the content is disputed, we could look to Wikipedia:Translators available#French-to-English for assistance. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Public Philosophy[edit]

Hey, I corrected the public philosophy article to remove inaccuracies, which I detailed on the webpage for the overseeing group. If you'd like to chat to me, I'm Professor Greg Littmann from SIUE (glittma@siue.edu). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.160.125 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not adding details when I made the edit. I'm still learning Wikipedia! In case you haven't seen my reasons, the primary one is that the article as it stands confuses the definition of public philosophy as philosophy undertaken in a public venue with the view that philosophy should "merely" educate the public, and not interact with them, and that it confuses the definition of public philosophy as philosophy dealing with issues of public importance for the view that philosophy must be interactive. These are quite different issues. In blurring this distinction, the article completely misrepresents the Essays in Philosophy special issue on public philosophy (Vol 15, issue 1, 2014) (and my own paper in this volume). The journal uses the definition of public philosophy as philosophy undertaken in a public venue, but neither the editor nor any of the authors claims that philosophers should only educate the public and not interact with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.160.143 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No big thing; obviously it wasn't too hard to fix with an explanation and a bit of attention to detail in the edit. I did subsequently move one of your paragraphs down to the "Perspectives" section. When an article has sections, the top part (called the "lead") is supposed to summarize the material that is in the other sections. That way, readers who only want a quick overview can just read the top, and those who want more detail can read the rest. If too much of the detail is in the top, it defeats that idea. So I pushed the second paragraph down as a quick way to address that. There's still plenty of opportunity to improve the article, of course. --RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017[edit]

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

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde copyedit[edit]


Your GA nomination of The Fountainhead[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Fountainhead you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Fountainhead[edit]

The article The Fountainhead you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Fountainhead for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations! - Template:Did you know nominations/The Fountainhead, - I took the fist thing that I did NOT know ;) - feel free to supply ALTs, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination; I'm always happy to see articles I've worked on appear on the main page. I've never been particularly comfortable writing hooks, so I'm fine for it to go up with the one you picked. I will try to help with any other issues that come up -- I've already responded to the citation request from the reviewer. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, very kind! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Apparently the GA reviewer didn't fully understand what they were doing and the review (along with another one also recently done) has been withdrawn. Presumably the DYK is now invalid and should be closed/rejected/deleted (not really sure what the protocol is, if there is one) until the article achieves GA status properly. --RL0919 (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear - I wonder what the process is. Perhaps you nominate again and find a reviewer soon? - We can always nominate again when that is done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The "bad" review was deleted, so I'm still in queue at the previous spot, waiting for a new reviewer. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)