User talk:SlimVirgin/April 2021
Manual archiving
Category:Pages using PMID magic links has been nominated for deletion
[edit]
Category:Pages using PMID magic links has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Pages using ISBN magic links has been nominated for deletion
[edit]Category:Pages using ISBN magic links has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Refs format
[edit]Hello, SlimVirgin. I notice on Talk:Susan_Gerbic#Citations that you proposed to "change the list-defined references to ref name= within the text". I am happy either way, but I would like to understand the reason for the change. I don't want to distract the conversation there just for my curiosity, so I thought it better to ask here. Most other editors I have had the discussion with found the list format easier to work with, so I would be interested to know why you prefer to go back to the inline layout. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Gronk, list-defined refs mean the ref is never where you need it. Usually it will be in the vicinity, or if used a lot you can remember the closest use. But with list-defined, they're always at the end, usually not with good ref names and never in alphabetical order, so every single time you need to check something, you have to go hunting. SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! I grew up with inline refs and never really got used to the list format - but I thought it was just because I am too old to learn new tricks...
--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- We're too old to learn new bad tricks. SarahSV (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! I grew up with inline refs and never really got used to the list format - but I thought it was just because I am too old to learn new tricks...
Good ol days
[edit]:) Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Sex#change_to_lead,_part_2 for the discussion that led to the changes in the lead. In short, whether "sex" is a category, a category, a characteristic, or an attribute was roundly debated. Initially, editors (including Crossroads) resisted "attribute" since it wasn't found in any cited materials. Mathglot eventually considered whether it was simply a common sense issue, and Newimpartial relented on his initial misgivings. Ultimately Crossroads made the edit nearly verbatim as one of my numerous alternatives, yet the wording is ungrammatical, hence my ultimate edit. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If you continue to be ping'ed for discussion without replying at that page, you'll be reported for reticence, apathy, and aloofness. If you continue to side with verbiage that is demonstrably deficient in representing the stated intent of its proponents, you will be enrolled in the Hogwarts School to begin a course in Magical Makeovers for Arbitrary and Capricious Behaviors. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Kent, please do report me for reticence, apathy, and aloofness. It will be a fascinating discussion, but—predictably—I'm afraid I'll be too reticent, apathetic and aloof to take part. I look forward to my Magical Makeover. SarahSV (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to "LOL" at ^that^? — Ched (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- This now makes three people who seem to get my sardonic sense of humor. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to "LOL" at ^that^? — Ched (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Sarah, would you mind having a look at this edit as well as at the three most recent edits at sex? If you're so inclined, you might then have a word with the appropriate party concerning WP:CIVILITY as applied to the former and WP:EW regarding the latter, which isn't yet ripe, but the handwriting is on the wall. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
How we correctly address the 6 million European Jews
[edit]Thank you for your tireless work on the Holocaust article; it is not only extremely appreciated, but also extremely necessary. What is less necessary but bugging me nonetheless, is how to address the Jews who were murdered. I personally believe using an article to collectively title "the Jews" shows more respect and is a better way of honouring their memory. We see them as "the Jews" who perished in the Holocaust, not merely Jews. Personally I think the counter-arguments to this, such as "flow" have been weak and inconsiderable, and in the case of the actual structure of said first sentence previously discussed, incorrect.
I know it's only one word, but I feel it an important one nonetheless. 2A02:C7F:F84E:D300:E495:B144:447A:264A (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, and I will try to restore it. I want to take a look first at who is arguing for what. SarahSV (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! 2A02:C7F:F84E:D300:1184:9CA6:4506:1211 (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
[edit]
kitten! :D
Suspicioussandwich (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you notice
[edit]
|
Thank you notice |
| Sorry for abusing this type of messaging. But how do I send a thank you notice of the same type that you sent me? Gciriani (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC) |
- If you see someone on your watchlist you want to thank, click on the diff, and there should be a "thank" thing to click on. I can't remember whether you need to set that up in your preferences, though, so check there too. SarahSV (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- For example, "Revision as of 23:13, 17 April 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank)". SarahSV (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! You can delete my question if you wish to.--Gciriani (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Podcast chat
[edit]Hey Sarah,
I'm making a podcast about Wikipedia and would love to speak to you about your work on it. Would you be up for speaking with me at some point?
Thanks!
Wearecrowd (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.