Jump to content

User talk:SS49/Archive 4

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

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Wikidata weekly summary #371

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • More work on preparing the technical setup for Wikidata Bridge development
    • Implement Feature Flag for Wikidata Bridge (phab:T225935)
    • Discuss the best way to connect template parameter to corresponding Wikidata property (phab:T224832)
    • Improve the documentation for Wikibase sites setup (phab:T218282)
    • Prepare the last steps for reading from new term store implementation (phab:T225603) according to the migration plan (phab:T221765)
    • Fixed a bug and reduced significantly the amount of addUsagesForPage jobs in our jobs queue (phab:T205045)
    • Removed feature flag for the bugfix for wbeditentity setting aliases to empty array (phab:T223305)
    • Decreased EntityUsageTable addUsage batch size to 100 (phab:T225500)
    • Configured query service lag for Wikidata maxlag (phab:T222193)
    • Helped fixing an issue with moving files on Commons (phab:T226672)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-27

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The development of Wikidata Bridge has started. The goal is to allow Wikidata edits from Wikipedia. [1]

Problems

  • Sometimes pages load slowly for users routed to the Amsterdam data center. Investigation is in progress. [2]
  • Wikidata query service was overloaded between 11:50 UTC until 13:15 UTC on June 24. It has been fixed. [3]

Changes later this week

  • You will be able to read but not to edit all wikis for a short amount of time, on 3 July at 06:00 (UTC). This is to move a database. [4]
  • There is no deployment of a new version of MediaWiki on the wikis this week (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 3 July at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

“Requested move 26 June 2019” discussion for article ‘Frick Collection’

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello SS49 – I was hoping you could please share with me how you came to the decision to close this particular ‘requested move’ discussion with the option “not moved”. Thank you! Observer1632 (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Observer1632, There was no consensus to move the page. ~SS49~ {talk} 01:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate on how you came to this conclusion. Specifically, in your judgement which arguments were put forward in opposition to the move that you considered to be relevant? Thanks again! Observer1632 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
There was no sufficient ground for moving. Your comments weren't convincing. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 02:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
As you are aware, I am new here, and so please be patient with me as I ask you additional questions in the hopes of better understanding this situation. In particular, I have my perception of the discussion, and I would like to clarify where it may differ from yours. I readily acknowledge there could be something I am missing, but if this is the case it is not yet clear to me what it is.
I would like to begin by listing the 3 keys points I think I established during this ‘Requested move’ discussion:
  1. The current, formal title of the museum is in fact “The Frick Collection”. I provided numerous examples of how this is the case, including especially a link to the museum’s website where one can clearly see this is their proper name.
  2. The Wikipedia policy WP:VAMOS neither specifically talks to how articles about art museums should be titled, nor does it preclude an article from the art world having a title beginning with “The”. The details of how I came to this conclusion are provided in my final comment at the end of the discussion, and you are of course welcome to verify that everything I wrote there is factual.
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Guideline specifically says “The name of the article should be the current, formal title of the museum.” in the first sentence of the ‘Article name and infobox’ section. Again, this is something you can very easily verify to be a fact.
Now I would like to ask you to please respond to the following 2 questions:
Do you acknowledge that I communicated the above listed 3 points during this discussion?
Do you accept the validity of the above listed 3 points?
If your answer is ‘No’ to either of these 2 questions, then I ask you to please explain why this is the case.
On the other hand, if your answer is ‘Yes’ to these 2 questions, then I would like to submit to you that these 3 points do in fact constitute “sufficient ground for moving” the article to the new title “The Frick Collection”. If your perception is they are not sufficient grounds, then I ask you to please provide me with your argument for why this is the case.
Once again, I appreciate you taking the time to educate me regarding this!
Observer1632 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Observer1632, I think it was my mistake to close the discussion seeing the number of opposes only. Please wait I will consult with other editors. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems no mistake. This is a good close. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I was about to say. Both sides had valid arguments. The other side had more heads. Unless the other side were asserting without arguments, they can not be discounted on personal subjective judgement on which argument you think was more valid. That is the very idea behind having an uninvolved editor closing a discussion. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 05:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Usedtobecool – Based on this feedback, I have two follow-up questions. Can you please respond to the following:
Wikipedia:Requested moves specifically says, “The debate is not a vote”. Does this not mean a statement such as “The other side had more heads” is inappropriate in this context?
Wikipedia:Closing discussions specifically says the role of the closer does include judging the argument. Therefore I believe it would be appropriate for me to be providing with a response to the question I asked earlier: Specifically, in your judgement which arguments were put forward in opposition to the move that you considered to be relevant?
Thank you! Observer1632 (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect a more careful reading of WP:not counting heads is required. The "debate is not a vote" means that a closer doesn't decide by counting votes and deciding the majority. Instead, the closer looks at the arguments as well as the contributors. In this case, all the votes were citing policy, established practices, etc. More importantly, the action of the closer is based on consensus. In that case, the closer needed a clear consensus that editors wanted the page to be moved. Both "no consensus" and consensus against moving would result in the same outcome. The closer didn't provide their rationale in closing (which I believe is an oversight on their part) but I think we can all agree that the consensus can not be said to have been moving toward your viewpoint in that discussion, not by a long shot. You were giving very sincere and detailed arguments but it failed to convince others to change their decisions. The closer could see that all contributors were there in good faith, all contributors were making arguments based on policies, practices and precedents they thought relevant, and there wasn't a consensus developing toward a move, despite your best tries. Anyway, that's how I saw that discussion. So, the closer could not rule in your favour. Community consensus is what makes wikipedia possible, policies are reflections of community consensus, citing policies can not overturn community consensus. In this case, all arguments were valid as they were based on policy, practices, precedents, etc. The closer is not allowed to use their subjective ruling on which argument is the most valid one (the one they agree with). That would be getting involved. To summarise, policies are guidelines, community consensus trumps almost everything. We even have WP:IAR. Also, consider this one: WP:DEADHORSE. Some battles you may lose to community consensus no matter how right you are. Just move on. . As to educating yourself goes, this kind of discourse helps, but following other such discussions on moves, deletions, edits, etc. helps better. Good luck!Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 14:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Apologies to SS49, but once I've chimed in, I ought to respond. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 14:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool no worries. Thanks for the response. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank both of you (SS49 & Usedtobecool) for taking the time to provide me with your feedback on this topic. I believe ‘learning’ is a key component of encyclopedias, and therefore it seems fitting for learning to also occur when an encyclopedia is being built  :)
Second, since you have called out WP:DEADHORSE, I can take a hint and will cease asking you questions about this topic; furthermore this will be my last post in this conversation. I fully endorse that it is important in life to be able to “agree to disagree” and continue to respect someone with a different view!
Third, the questions I was asking were not meant to ‘beat a horse to death’. In addition to facilitating my learning, I thought asking questions would be helpful to you by providing you with an understanding of not only what I had concluded from the previous discussion, but also how I had reached those conclusions. Now then, before signing off, please allow me to enumerate where we respectfully disagree:
Your view is all those opposed to this requested move were making arguments that “were citing policy, established practices, etc.” In my opinion the following comments neither cite any relevant policy/etc., nor do they constitute what I would consider to be ‘an argument’:
- “It ain't broke, why change it?”
- “Unnecessary.”
- “Let it Be...”
If the above pass for being ‘an argument’ in the Wikipedia world, then I have a serious misconception that I will need to adjust.
Further I do not consider a comment such as “Oppose per WP:THE” to be ‘an argument’. That is, stating a policy without explaining how the details of that policy apply to the discussion in my opinion do not constitute one making a compelling case for why something should not be done. Instead, when a policy is brought up such as when it was said, “changing this long established WP:VAMOS style”, then I think the appropriate action to take when ‘judging an argument’ is to see what the policy actually says and how it applies to the discussion. I consider what I said in the final comment of the discussion to be a good example of how this can be done, but the impression you are leaving me with is these details are not very relevant and what is most important is simply for someone to be quoting policies. Fair enough, again the onus is on me to adjust my expectations.
I actually find it ironic you referenced WP:IAR, as in my opinion this would have been an excellent policy to apply to help you come to the judgment the right thing to do here would be to approve/accept this requested move versus the decision that was actually made. That is, my perception is an ardent adherence to rules is what would lead one to not make this requested move after they had carefully considered the relevant arguments made in the discussion.
Finally, please allow me to conclude by stating once again I respect you, and if anything I have written has come across as being disrespectful of you in any way then, even though this was not my intent, I would like to apologize for it. Once more, thank you for your time and engagement in this discussion. Observer1632 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Month in Education: June 2019

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 6 • June 2019

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

Re:

Indeed, I am. My user page is quite accessible in that regard. I have a stalker of sorts and found your talk page while I was going through their contributions. Turns out they were looking for compatriots. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 11:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, Happy to see active user from here. Your English is not less than that of a native speaker. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! You are very proficient as well. I was particularly impressed by your contributions. I am only a novice in that regard, and have much to learn. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 14:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2019)

Hello, SS49.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Sadomasochism

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Bedrock • Legislator

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Wikidata weekly summary #372

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship: ZI Jony
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Development
    • Enabled JSONLD support for entity data (example)
    • Fixed JSON dump issue (phabricator:T226601)
    • Readded qualifier hashes in JSON output that accidentally got lost (phabricator:T227207)
    • Made sure changes on Entity Schema pages by autoconfirmed users are autopatrolled (phabricator:T224495)
    • Looked into issues with partial blocking on Wikidata entities (phabricator:T207893)
    • Adding MediaInfo as an entity type that can be used in the "allowed entity types"-constraint (phabricator:T224362)
    • Investigating an issue with the tours on Wikidata (phabricator:T223999)
    • Initial work for the edit dialog that is needed for editing of Wikidata's data from Wikipedia (Wikidata Bridge)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Tech News: 2019-28

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • For event organizers, if you request a temporary lift of the IP cap for mass account creation, this will now also raise the edit rate limit for those new accounts at the event, which will prevent another bottleneck. [5]
  • Administrators at all Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, and Wikisource wikis are now able to use the new partial blocks feature. [6]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 July. It will be on all wikis from 11 July (calendar).
  • The design of MediaWiki's software windows will change for desktop users. Layout will be simpler, buttons will be bolder and clearer, and close buttons will be just icons. This is like the mobile design. This will affect ContentTranslation, VisualEditor, TemplateWizard, and other tools. [7]

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 10 July at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Wikidata will be in read-only mode on 30 July from 05:00 to 05:30 UTC because of a server switch. [8]
  • Advanced item There will be a change in the name format of new Wikidata RDF dumps starting on 15 July. [9]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2019



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, SS49. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Thank you so much ~SS49~ {talk} 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2019)

Legal status of cannabis possession for non-medical use (2018)
  Legal
  Illegal but decriminalized
  Illegal but often unenforced
  Illegal
See also countries that have legalized medical use of cannabis.
Hello, SS49.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Decriminalization of marijuana

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Sadomasochism • Bedrock

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Tech News: 2019-29

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The mobile web will get more advanced editing tools. Seven more Wikipedias can use them now. This works for Arabic, Indonesian, Italian, Persian, Japanese, Spanish and Thai Wikipedia. You can try the tools on the mobile web and give feedback. [10]

Changes later this week

  • Advanced item The abuse filter system user will soon do maintenance edits on broken abuse filters. This user is called Edit filter and has administrator rights. This is meant to fix technical problems. It will not do any other changes. You can read more.
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 July. It will be on all wikis from 18 July (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 17 July at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The Wikipedia app for Android will invite users to add image captions to images on Commons. It will only invite users who have added a number of edits in the app without being reverted. This is to avoid spam and bad edits. You can read more and leave feedback. [11]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SS49/Archive_4&oldid=909724174"