User talk:Rhododendrites/2019e
 | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period September 2019 - October 2019. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, 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). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Saturday Sept 7: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
| Sept 7, 12:30pm: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Upper East Side. Together, we'll expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion topics for basic clothing types that can be illustrated by the Met collection, and also past Costume Institute exhibitions! It's the last weekend for Camp: Notes on Fashion, and we will have an intro talk to the exhibit by a guest from the Costume Institute, and participants will then be able to visit it on their own. Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm. With refreshments, and there will be a wiki-cake! Open to everyone at all levels of experience, wiki instructional workshop and one-on-one support will be provided.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! --Wikimedia New York City Team 19:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
RfA
I have not looked into your archives, if you have answered, so forgive me for repeating this. I am familiar with your good work here. Any reason, you have not gone for an RfA yet ?--DBigXrayᗙ 06:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Seconded ;) Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray and Guettarda: Thanks for the message. It comes up from time to time, and occasionally I waffle a little and consider it, but ultimately I have three reasons not to do an RfA. In decreasing order of importance: I haven't done a good job of fastidiously preserving my anonymity and don't want the extra attention that comes with being an admin (especially an admin who sometimes wants to edit in controversial subject areas); the RfA process itself; time. There are workarounds for the second two, but not really for the first... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2019
| ||||||
Thanks
Thanks for your recent support at my RfA, it's really appreciated. The NPP community is important to me and so it was so gratifying to have you and other reviewers say such nice things. It's appreciated and I look forward to our paths crossing, whether at NPP or elsewhere, again soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| September 25, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team ~~~~~ | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Thanks for the link.
Rhododendrites,
Thanks for the link. I've paid my dues so I can express my thanks by voting for you in the next Board election! Will the election be in October? When is the October meeting? Feel free to give me the answers in person tonight. Thanks for responding. Vyeh (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Vyeh: :) The October meeting is currently scheduled for 10/23. As for the election, we'll talk more about it tonight, but my understanding is that we'll have the election in November. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019
- Wikimania
- We're building something great, but..
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- A Wikibrarian's story
- Bytes in brief
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15
A final update, for now:
The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.
Regards,
-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2019
- From the editors: Where do we go from here?
- Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup
- Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads
- News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green
- Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2019
| ||||||
Regarding stalemate and check
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |       | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Strictly speaking, if there is no check, then any situation where you cannot move is stalemate. Checkmate is a situation when you cannot move and are in check. But I agree that it is clearer without the word: I tried to rephrase it again to avoid arguments over GNL and/or singular-they (which was my original motive for the first rephrasing), so now it reads "A player wins by being unable to make a move (which includes having no remaining pieces on the board)".
(BTW, not all stalemates even in orthodox chess arise from a player's moves being restricted by check. He or she could just be blocked in, as in this diagram from Talk:Stalemate.) Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: True enough, though in this case, where there are so many variations that do/don't include check/checkmate, the term is likely confusing, as you point out. No objections to the rewording on my part. I do wish we had better sources for that article in general, but that's another issue. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019
Sprawling message contained
|
|---|
|
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019. HelpWhat talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it! Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage. Talk PagesThe Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page. The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate. Mobile visual editorThe Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile. Edit Cards
Toolbar
WikimaniaThe Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019. Looking ahead
– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC) |
.jpg) |
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Eldridge Street Synagogue (42773).jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
|
Speaking about anyone who is suitable passing RfA
If you ran, you'd pass RfA. Disagree with you completely on the community desysop stuff, but you should give it a go. RfA is the healthiest it's been in almost a decade. I'd support TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for saying so, Tony. I appreciate that. I feel it tugging at me every once in a while, but the reasons why I don't stretch beyond the RfA process itself (although that's not irrelevant, cf. #RfA above). I.e. actually related to the reasons you cite why you're against a community desysop. I admittedly feel a little guilty not throwing my hat in, and that guilt will probably win out at some point down the road. I'll let you know when it does. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
2019 US Banknote Contest
.png){kind=logo}
|
US Banknote Contest | 
|
|---|---|---|
| November-December 2019 | ||
|
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here | ||
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)
Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| October 23rd, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 05:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU. And what a great first edit it was! :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Nutshells in deletion discussions
Rhododendrites, I didn't know nutshells were even done, let alone frowned upon, in deletion discussions. Nevertheless, I take your point and have removed it, along with your comment requesting reversion since I've done exactly as requested. Please accept my apologies. I didn't know.--Doug Mehus (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dmehus. It comes up from time to time. Sometimes in deletion discussions, but also in some longish RfCs. As far as I know there's no explicit policy against it, but I've never seen it happen where it wasn't highly controversial, almost always being hatted/removed/moved. They're generally frowned upon in most cases, except as part of closure. Their primary function is to guide !votes of people who come to the discussion later according to how the discussion has gone up to that point, creating the appearance of consensus when the consensus-building process is still ongoing. They also inevitably fail to capture the finer points of the various arguments, which participants should be able to read as-is without a summary presented to them (which, practically, stands in for rather than supplements the discussion). In this case, for example, it seemed like you were presenting as ~interim-consensus a summary of the arguments for deletion and nothing else. That just speaks to how they're never really satisfactory, though. Thanks for reverting.
- As an aside, for context, I tend to find some of the MfDs for userspace frustrating when there's no clear promotional/spam/attack/copyvio issue. It seems like they're too often determined by a small number of people advocating deletion without basis in the guidelines that have much broader consensus. I just don't get it. The pages aren't even indexed and nobody sees them other than the creator and people doing maintenance work in userspace. Beyond that, they can just be blanked, so I don't get why they dome to MfD. The bigger reason I find it frustrating is because it winds up taking a bunch of time to defend pages that frankly aren't all that valuable because of the principle of it -- that userspace should be a place where people know that if they're editing in good faith, it doesn't matter that much how they use it. We often see people who made a few edits long ago come back to Wikipedia and become active, and "we deleted what you did before because you left for a while, even though nobody would ever see it and it was just sitting in your userspace" isn't exactly the most welcoming thing. Beyond that, people nominate this stuff while users are active (there are a few nominations moments after a user created a user page or draft). I just don't get it, when there's so much garbage actually in mainspace, why anyone is working hard to delete people's sandboxes. (This is general venting, and not necessarily about you btw). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites No problem. For clarity, I wouldn't have minded if you, or a person with an opposing view, added any salient counter-arguments that I'd missed—or otherwise refined my Nutshell. I know refactoring others' comments is discouraged, but I think it's OK so long as common sense is used (i.e., to improve neutrality and objectivity). Nevertheless, I was also fine to remove it.Doug Mehus (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites To your latter point, I do agree with you to an extent that it can be discouraging for returning editors. I was mildly, perhaps a bit more than mildly, put off by a number of 2007-tagged CSD deletions of logos and other clearly Fair Use rationale deletions of images. Similarly, following my return from another wikibreak, my userpage was summarily deleted because it contained "too much biographical" information and a photo of myself. I find that a bit more distressing...I mean, it's one thing to say we can't have a biography in the Main namespace, but I sort of think—so long there's not excessive external links and blatant puffery, we should be more tolerant of users' main userpages. What do you think on that?Doug Mehus (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2019
- In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit
- Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse
- Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars
- Community view: Observations from the mainland
- Arbitration report: October actions
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast
- Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?