User talk:SlimVirgin/March 2021

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorginak

Thanks for blocking that IP who is obviously Sorginak. There is an SPI open to see if any of the accounts overlap. I hope someone uninvolved indefs all those Xabier-related accounts (Sorginak, the IP and Ridership) and salt the new Xabier Lezama. It's a total waste of time to go over this again! Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I was about to speedy delete the new creation when Graeme Bartlett, another admin, removed the tag. That's why the previous situation is being repeated. I've asked Graeme to explain his concerns, but so far he has not. I will try to keep the disruption to a minimum. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you have said about that. This user is the definition of disruption, and this new article is nothing new.--- Possibly (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

SV, Sorginak's socks have been blocked here. However they're back with a new IP below (212.142.205.111), which I I've collapsed so you can see my message. I hope you don't mind. --- Possibly (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

extended content

It is better to put maximum effort into creating and maintaining an item than minimum effort to destroy an item, although the latter is always easier. --212.142.205.111 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC) You should take the example of Graeme Bartlett. --212.142.205.111 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and create content. "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness." Wikipedia is not censored. Article additions and expansions as well as adding sources, and allowing time for them to occur, is almost always highly superior to simply deleting articles. Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can sometimes be merged with other articles (see mergism). Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can sometimes be userfied so that the user can work on improving the article on their timeframe. Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective, varying with time, geography and interest. For some people, US 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish 18th century scientist John Anderson is more prominent. It can be discouraging when articles created by first-time contributors and newer users are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy. It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia looking for information, and instead find that the relevant article that existed at one point has since then been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship. Deleting an article under the generic basis of notability both reduces Wikipedia to the level of traditional encyclopedias (which won't cover topics that Wikipedia will for various reasons, including notability), and also doesn't provide the oversight that a traditional encyclopedia has to justify it trimming articles. Part of the reason people use Wikipedia is that it is a vibrant source of obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional encyclopedia. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page "In Need of Editing and Sources", are more than enough to correct problems. The Wikipedia search engine was updated and improved in May 2010, in which "Search suggestions are now improved to get you to the page you are looking for more quickly," as reported on the Wikimedia blog on May 13, 2010. (link: "A new look for Wikipedia".) This serves to nullify the deletionist argument that "too many unnoteworthy or obscure articles impede finding the relevant stuff..." in Wikipedia searches. Search, categorization, disambiguation pages, lists and other technical measures for organization can diminish the difficulty in finding information even when there are many articles about insignificant subjects. Deletionists may subjectively pick-and-choose from a long and diverse list of Wikipedia notability and other guidelines as a rationale for the blanket deletion of an article. When one chosen standard is dis-proven, another rule is searched for and then stated as a rationale for deletion. Deletionists may use absolutist rationales and stances to justify article deletion. A notable example in Articles for deletion logs is arguing that absolutely no reliable sources exist to establish notability for and/or verify an article, while utilizing only one brief search for news and other sources, such as on Google or Google news, to qualify the statement. Sometimes it takes only seconds to disqualify such statements by utilizing web searches in other mediums, particularly those that are empirical, research-based, and lack a profit motive. Some deletionists will maliciously delete articles that are on subjects that they find politically, economic or religious uncomfortable for themselves, or delete information which goes against their personal beliefs even when it is fully sourced, which is against two policies of Wikipedia: free knowledge and NPOV. No one has the right to run Wikipedia as their private propaganda megaphone. It's easy to just sit down at home and say "I don't know anything of that or that or that, let's delete it!" about local people, politics, economics, religion, events, science, arts, literature, film, theater, food and drinking/restaurants, geography, astronomy, dance, music, sports, education and whatever all around the Earth, but when it's your own hometown or native country (or just something you know), you've often heard of it over the local media or been taught about it at school as a child, and since you know of its local importance you would like to keep it (and as long as you can keep the NPOV-writting, no one can blame you for conflict of interest). Some deletionists might also delete articles on topics which, while inoffensive or unrelated to them, may seem unimportant or irrelevant because of lack of familiarity or disinterest due to cultural differences. Deletions and mergings lead to Wikipedia being split up. There are proposes to create an "Inclupedia" mirror website, and there is a Deletionpedia. Also, a lot of fan- and theme wikis like "Star Wars" wiki and a "Star Trek" wiki (which has already happened sometimes) have become popular. Do you have time for or want to be active on all those fan- and theme wikis at the same time, when it could be all here, "under the same roof", where NPOV is what we want? In the future, if deletionism continues, there might maybe be several general Wikipedias in each language, with different notability guidelines. These general Wikipedias would be created because of disappointment with the current Wikipedia's notability guidelines leading to deleted articles, and people will go where the articles are, not where they aren't. It's also easier for people searching for knowledge having it all at the same wiki. If Wikimedia Commons can add so much of the world in picture, with the only and very simple requirement of being the very universal "educational" topic, then why can't Wikipedia do that in words? Articles of current events are often said to fit better into the Wikinews, which isn't true. The difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews is not what's written, but rather how it's written. An event can fit in both, written like an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia and like in a newspaper on Wikinews. Articles often vandalized by vandals (like schools, often a target for article deletion) can just be locked. Sadly, this reduces the opportunity to edit the article, but everyone can still read it and it's better for the information-searcher (who we actually write for) than no article at all. Or else we can just say: "-Shut down Wikipedia once for all. No Wikipedia, no problems!" Articles with commercial connections, like companies, are often deleted based on the opinion that "everything commercial is only bad, just because it's commercial and businesspeople make money on it. Let's delete it!" Sorry, but that's POV. When articles are to be deleted in one language, they might be translated into other languages. Is it the language that keeps them doing any wrong? Wikipedia isn't split into languages for fun, but because people speak different languages. Notability guidelines, deletions and mergings may lead to lies being told. Let's say we require a number of employees for a company to be on Wikipedia. This would cause the company to lie about its number of employees to everyone just to get a Wikipedia article. (and as long as there's no bookkeeping crimes involved, they will not risk anything) Even if Wikipedia's role is not to turn the un-famous into famous, there is a risk that's what it already has done when some such articles may slip through the notability guidelines for years. Even if we are leaving the paper age right behind us, some people still have preconceptions what an encyclopedia is and can only include, dated from the paper age. As the years progress, more and more people accept Wikipedia being allowed to include most knowledge, and it's not a distant science-fiction-like future we're talking of, but rather an era which we've already begun to enter. Deletions and deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project. It has already occurred several times. Fun? Some popular culture may be picked up by cultural eliticism (those who say Ingmar Bergman's films are better than splatter films and back in the 1950's and 60's said you shall read books instead of comic books or watching films instead of television series (since television series are considered by some to be just "bad soap operas") or prefered people to listen to classical music instead of rock music because it has been considered "good culture" among themselves). A lot of popular culture is, by cultural eliticists, often said being "fancruft", "unnecessary knowledge" and "unimportant information". Sorry, but labeling knowledge like that's POV. How important or good something is, is up to the reader, not to us all as Wikipedia. Our only ambition is to describe the world, and let the readers think and have the opinions about it. Deletionism may favour urban districts over rural ones, since many small towns don't have a lot of world famous people, but only people who are important for their town. If someone creates an article about, let's say, a fountain in a village in the rural Highlands of Scotland, mergists would call for merging it with the village article. But if it was in let's say London, people wouldn't even question the article existing. Deletionism may favour rich countries, since it's there most people have a computer and the Internet at home. (poor countries are usually less in the medias, except wars, famines and natural disasters or sports success) This would give a very Western World-fixed POV. Sure Wikipedia is no charity project, but it still shall cover the entire world. It's easy for an administrator to delete, as he or she can still watch deleted articles when needing the knowledge, as well as restore the article when he or she wants. Other users can't... Whenever I come to any other topic-related Wiki (like a comic books wiki, Star Wars wiki or any other topic, no matter if I'm interested in it or not), I always think: "-How much I wish everything here, both articles and contributors, was on Wikipedia instead (with NPOV, of course)". On Wikipedia, there is place, but we still seem to behave as if there weren't. Wanting to delete when there is place is like fighting over food in a developed country. Let's compare the deletion of Wikipedia to a building that's ripped apart during construction. Why were Sweden, Switzerland and the the USA among the world's richest and wealthiest countries by 1970? Answer = Not having any of the world wars, or any other major military conflict, on home soil (OK, the USA had Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941 during World War II, but not much more), they didn't need time to re-build houses bombed at war! Instead, they could continue developing their economy, education and welfare when many other have to re-start from square one again. No one is a deletionist when they search for the information! For every year that passes, we write more and more for generations who have grown up with the "almost everything is on the Internet" perspective, rather than "Which book am I going too use this time?". So what's better than having the information here, where NPOV is the ambition? Picking up articles and nominating them for deletion or merging, or questioning the notability, is sometimes seen as a "good job" by users, which will lead to administratorship or becoming a popular user. Please fight the idea; let other things (like the fighting against vandalism which is uncontroversial) decide administratorship, in the worst cases, it can lead to people competing in nominating for deletions/merging, or competing over deleting and merging articles. See en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Sometimes it's said that after some time at Wikipedia, you will "learn what belongs to Wikipedia or not, and what's encyclopedic". Having edited since July 2005 something and as one of the most active users on the Swedish-language Wikipedia, I'm still strongly against most calls for deletions and mergings When some articles are nominated, many of them have been around for years, and often with no problem. So how can they suddenly be considered non-notable? And if the article suddenly ends up deleted somehow, Wikipedia has just taken yet another step backwards. One argument for deletion is, "Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem." That's like beheading someone to cure brain cancer. It gets rid of the cancer, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Another argument for deletion is, "Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads." What kind of an argument is that? That they've resorted to name-calling reflects very poorly on them. Referring to Wikipedia as an "all-knowing junk heap" is POV; one person's junk heap is another person's treasure trove. Sometimes, people use the absence of one article to favor deletion of existing articles. Sorry, but the absence of article A doesn't justify deletion or merging of article B. If you want article A to be written, just write it (or ask for it being written at the wishlists) instead of attacking already existing articles. Deletions seem to be behind a lot of conflicts on Wikipedia, where users call each other names (like "idiot", "stupid", "ugly" or whatever), leading to administrators suspending offenders, and focus moves from articles to conflict, turning Wikipedia into social media. More rules, more conflicts. The German-language Wikipedia lost both financial and content contributors due to unchecked Löschtroll (Purging trolls) activity. As a result, many German-language Internet magazines now insted link just to the English-language Wikipedia because they can't be reasonably sure if a de:WP article or section they link to today will still be there next week. Searches that end up in a "has been deleted" page on de:WP, but yield a valid result on en:WP, drive yet more German-language readers in this direction. When the Swedish-language Wikipedia began mass-deleting and mass-merging substubs for a while in 2008-early 2009, activity decreased and recovering took years before restorings finally could be done. (there was some minor decline even before, but those deletions and mergings definitely didn't help to increase activity.) There were less sources at the time, and sources became more common after that. But imagine if all those deletings and mergings instead had been sources added directly. What's notable and not isn't just differing between persons, but for the same person differing from time to time. If you're at school, London would be notable at the geography lesson, Abraham Lincoln at the history lesson, and the Beatles at the music lesson. All this within just some hours of the same day! Articles about musicians who have become popular throughout talent shows (like Idols) may be deleted because people who prefer bands who have performed together since high school sometimes look down on talent show participants. Sorry, but that's POV. Controversial issues and POV-articles may often be picked up for deletion or merging. Controversial topic or POV are no deletion arguments, just arguments for rewriting the article. With Wikidata, each topic is now allowed a short description in any language, with the only requirement of an article being around in one single language. This might be very irritating if you read in a language where the article has been deleted. Wikipedia is used at free risk. There is no need to delete articles "lacking of quality". But there is always a chance to improve them. On the Internet, outside Wikipedia, why do you think there are a lot of people complaining over deletions, but not a lot of people complaining over articles actually existing? Lack of history-knowledge may lead to historical topics being deleted, while current event can be kept because of media overflow on the Internet. Deletions can lead to favoring males and deleting females because of historical, economic, social and cultural opinions. (this is not a fall for deleting events more more recent years, just expanding with more history) Sometimes, articles are deleted after not being improved for one year or something. Sorry, but unlike Super Mario Bros., Wikipedia has no time that can run out! We're no video game, and we don't run of time. The point with Wikipedia is that improving an article is never too late, no matter if it's 10 minutes after article creation, or 10 years later! Finding sources is usually easy today, with the Internet being around. Imagine if people cared more for spending time on looking for sources rather than calling for deletion because of sources lacking. Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the amount of valuable information on Wikipedia. Sometimes, articles are proposed to be merged into lists. However, Wikipedia is on the first hand based on articles, not lists. Lists come in the second hand. Lists shall usually link to separate articles, not be some kind of compilation articles. Sometimes, articles are merged into lists, redirecting. The lists are sometimes replaced with categories, in turn sometimes leading to the list ending up deleted. This also causes the deletion of articles (with revision history) now working as redirect. With notability guidelines introduced, and deletions and mergings proposed, users may instead move article-like information, considered not notable, to their own Wikipedia userpages (where they can POV-push it). It's a strength that Wikipedia can cover as much knowledge as possible. The language-version of Wikipedia, with the less strictest notability guidelines, will without hesitating become the most popular among those who know that language. When sources are added to the articles and NPOV held, that formula becomes unstopable. Sometimes, an article is deleted or merged based on one single administrator's personal opinions on what shall be on Wikipedia and not, despite doing such things being very controversial among many other users. Encyclopedists of the past, all the way from the first ancient Stone Age hunter, fisherman and farmer civilizations ever walking on Earth up to the highly advanced computer age technologies of the global 1990's, were limited by the length of the paper (or the size of the cave for early cave painters, or stone scriptures for the first civilizations adopting a written language and actually even the limit of CD-ROM's during the 1990's) to various degrees. Today's encyclopedists are limited only by totally manmade notability guidelines. It's like rejecting the progress of technology, and still today travel across the Atlantic Ocean by sailing ship instead of motorship, or maybe aeroplane!. If Wikipedia had cared more for adding sources to the articles already from the beginning, the Deletionism-Mergism movements would probably have been much less active. Articles about reality television participants are often deleted bacuse such forms of entertainment is generally looked down on (despite their major popularity), and the participants are labelled like "wannabe celebrities". Like it or not, but if the participants have received the same media publicity as anyone else, they have satisfied notability. One article added, another one deleted. It can't be easy for Wikipedia to expand! Deletionists may delete any and all information that lacks a citation, regardless of whether or not the information given is true. It is proper etiquette to mark such information, if questionable, as needing a citation, rather than immediately jumping the gun. As Wikipedia now grows more and more in each language, more and more people will ask for it to cover almost everything (except the most private). With Wikipedia expanding even further, the frustration over each deletion (or even mergings) may become bigger and bigger. When Wikipedia started in mid-January 2001, many people couldn't imagine an encyclopedia covering as much as possible. Today, more and more people can, and the number is growing stronger and stronger for every year passing by! Times seem to become tougher and tougher to argue for deletions (or mergings). Some years ago the arguments would oppose subjects having articles. When Wikipedia began to care more and more for adding sources, they instead have to attack the quality of the article. The limit of the paper was a problem for paper encyclopedias, not a strength! Reading a paper or 1990's CD-ROM encyclopedia can make you interested in reading more about some things, only to discover the encylopedia hasn't much more information about that topic (and it can't be expanded either). Those days are nothing to miss! Inclusion leads to the possibility of delight. When one is looking for something obscure, and finds a Wikipedia article that mentions or even features the topic, that may give rise to a frisson of delight. If the article has a source, that may enable someone to delve even more deeply, leading to even greater delight. Every created article is basically a call for including it (it's not often someone picks up an article created by himself or herself for deletion or even merging!). Sometimes the lack of updating is used as a deletion or merging argument. That makes no sense. Sooner or later every encyclopedia becomes outdated, but remember Wikipedia can always be updated! Sometimes articles are proposed for deletion or merging because they're considered too short. Sorry, but a short article can also be well-written and there are always possibilities for expansion. One of Wikipedia's biggest weaknesses, except for being open to article POV-pushers and vandals, is that the you'll never know if the article you read today is there tomorrow - or even within just some minutes! Once the number of articles has been deleted within one topic, the hunt will continue for articles within other topics. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of everything by everyone. All information should be easily accessible to everyone, and everyone should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia. What's the point of having information if no-one can find it Deletionism is far too negative and discourages people from contributing. It's also kinda elitist - after all, who judges what should be kept and what shouldn't be? In the end, the admins and the more experienced will accrue more and more power over Wikipedia, bowing the guidelines towards their wikideology Sometimes, articles are called for deletion or merging because the topic has ceased to exist (deceased person or disbanded organization). That's never an argument. There's something called history. Sometimes, articles created by a banned user are called for deletion or merging. That's never an argument Start thinking of Wikipedia as a beautiful forest full of majestic trees, standing tall now, having been planted a couple of decades ago. Even the tallest trees aren't yet mature, but the woodland is extensive, and most trees are strong and healthy. People are tending to them and sunlight streams down, reaching the dense understorey of shrubs, whilst on the forest floor small flowers are in bloom, many with flowers yet to burst open and properly show their true colours. Numerous acorns are germinating, and those that somehow manage to avoid the browsing of the deer or the attacks of bark-stripping squirrels might one day rise up to become trees in their own right, too. Buzzing between the flowers, or crawling through the leaf litter there are innumerable small creatures. These dipterans, coleopterans, vespids, arachnids, millipedes and isopods mostly go unnoticed by visitors to the forest, but all form part of the rich woodland ecosystem. Without them the woodland will be poorer and not so healthy. Then along comes the woodsman, proud of his big trees, only wanting the best from the forest and, upon seeing some small insect he's never encountered before, roundly stamps upon it, content with himself that he's got rid of some worthless ugly critter that's just getting in the way of people wanting to admire those lovely big trees. Maybe, if he'd got his insect ID book with him, he'd have stopped and taken a moment to identify the innocent creature, and appreciated its worth within the bigger picture of that complex forest system. Had he known how to identify that insect properly he might even have realised its supporting role in cross-pollination, and how it presence adds to the biodiversity and value of the forest. On his way out, he swings his axe at a germinating acorn, not recognising how this sapling oak tree might one day be appreciated by visitors to that forest, or how it might have grown up to become home to countless other woodland species that depend upon it. I sense you are that woodsman - wanting the best, but unable to see how best to manage the forest ecosystem around him. As a start, cease stamping on things. Authored by User:Nick Moyes during an argument with a reckless deletionist on AN/I. - 24 January 2018 Users may feel stressed to quickly improve or expand articles, to avoid deletions or mergings. Articles being imrpoved is always good, but doing it editing under stress is not the best way! Being a Wikipedian is, sadly, less and less about adding something new, and instead becoming more and more about having to deal with saving already existing articles from deletions or mergings. In the diversity of minority groups of Christianity there are points of view with strong evidence, but inclusion is not allowed because they are considered irrelevant under the justification of "fringe theory", or because it is not the "mainstream view". The primary function is to edit, and editing is energetically expensive. Non-edits & other discussions detract from this function, and they are exhausting and take away energy that could be used for editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.205.111 (talk • contribs)

Mass POV pushing /source removal by Volunteer Marek on the Institute of National Remembrance page

Just wanted to let you know.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_of_National_Remembrance&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.198.213 (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, hey, that's one less IP address used by socks we have to worry about. Volunteer Marek 04:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:APLRS clarification request

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Requests for removing indefinite sysop move protection

Hi SlimVirgin, long time no talk and hope that you're well. I was doing a small census of articles under the scope of WP Anatomy and noticed quite a few had been indefinitely sysop move protected. IT seems like this is probably because of a sockpuppet vandalism incident around 2008. Anyhow although my heart is in the right place, I was unaware I needed to notify you about this. Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level when you have time and acting on any proposals relevant to you that you think are reasonable? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT), could you make clear on that page which ones you want me to look at? The first one I checked wasn't protected by me. Thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 01:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Yes that's true. Please ignore. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminship term length 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 05:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing on Cai Lun

Hi Sarah, I hope this message finds you well. I'm here for two reasons; firstly, to update you that I will likely not be creating a music article for Pound—I looked into it but I didn't seem to have much interest or motivation in pursuing further. Secondly, I'm wondering your opinion on a sourcing matter in the article for Cai Lun. I've been working on it for a while now and I hope to bring to FAC sometime soon. As there are few active Chinese history editors (though I did reach out to a couple), I emailed Rafe de Crespigny about the article. He provided me with much essential feedback, including that I do "not rely too heavily on Narita" (Narita, Kiyofusa (1966). Life of Ts'ai Lung and Japanese Paper-Making. Tokyo, Japan: Dainihon Press. OCLC 8310445.). De Crespigny said that for a few of Narita's statements he was not able to find confirmation in ancient Chinese sources, making them likely dubious—this was not a huge surprise to me, as I had noticed there were some blatant typos (or maybe just mistakes?) with the dates of certain emperor's reigns. What I'm wondering now, is if—knowing the potential unreliabillity of my source—I should continue to cite it for things that I assume are well-established. For example, when Cai became a eunuch to the royal court, he would have been working in conjugtion with the political officials of the palace, but the only source I could find that says this outright is Narita, I wrote "Narita notes that this role meant that Cai would have had many chances to become acquainted with some of the most powerful men in China"—is using the source in this case permissible? Another example would be Cai's promotion after assisting the "winning" family in a coup; this seems like an obvious situation where the promotion was a result of Cai's loyalty, but the only source that says this outright is Narita. The reason it would be unfortunate to remove such information, is because books/journals with information on Cai are extremely scarce, so any removal of information would be less than ideal. Though if doing so here would be the right move, I could look past that—begrudgingly ;) Aza24 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, thanks for letting me know about Pound. As for the other article, I'm afraid I can't help, but I wish you all the best with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I believe I've found a solution anyways. Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:MasterChef Australia (series 13) 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 04:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Dorothy Morgan / Donald Watson

Hi, you undid my edit in Veganism. Why? Your comments were "ce" and "better before", what did you mean by that? Are you questioning that Morgan co-invented the word "vegan"? if so which source do you mean. The Vegan Society "Ripened" source says it was both Morgan and Watson, and seems authoritative. Trimton (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) You're welcome to restore it if you want to. I think the sourcing needs to be improved for that whole section, but it's a bigger job than I have time for at the moment. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's done. So what does "ec" and "ce" mean? If you were to erase Dorothy Morgan again please state reasons (why is the sourcing bad?) Trimton (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"ec" means "edit conflict" and "ce" means "copy edit". As for Morgan, the whole section needs to be fixed. Sorry, I really can't think about it at the moment. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Enrique Tarrio 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 22:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of American Association of Nutritional Consultants for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Association of Nutritional Consultants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Association of Nutritional Consultants until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— BarrelProof (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) 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 10:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

... and also for missing RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)