User talk:The ed17

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


Contents

The Signpost
1 July 2015
The Bugle
Issue CXI – June 2015

Published by the Military history WikiProject




The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

Just wanted to say, your lead article had me fooled for a nanosecond until I started laughing out loud, realizing the date being April Fool's. Thanks for the chuckle; you made my day (although it's still March 31st where I am, Nevada). --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the trouble with timezones. I figured that it being after UTC was good enough. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely adored your April's Fool articles. Thanks for the effort to put some smile on our faces. werldwayd (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Werldwayd: Thank you! I put a good deal of effort into it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Blocked Vandal Returning Yet Again[edit]

Hi, I think Christina1969 has returned to edit again, despite her block, as the ip 89.134.20.238 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)). The new IP's edits and edit summaries recall Christina1969's edits and edit summaries, and the ip even restored the "In Popular Culture Section" in Kaprosuchus, which I had deleted for being unreferenced and irrelevant (in that, Christina1969 had previously restored it when she was using ip 89.134.28.154).--Mr Fink (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Though, JamesBWatson just blocked that new ip now.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I have no doubt that that IP address and 62.165.225.199 have both been used by Christina1969. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015[edit]

VisualEditor-logo.svg
Did you know?

With Citoid in VisualEditor, you click the 'book with bookmark' icon and paste in the URL for a reliable source:


Screenshot of Citoid's first dialog


Citoid looks up the source for you and returns the citation results. Click the green "Insert" button to accept its results and add them to the article:


Screenshot of Citoid's initial results


After inserting the citation, you can change it. Select the reference, and click the "Edit" button in the context menu to make changes.


The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's performance, the Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 11:00 (noon) PDT (18:00 UTC). You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal.

Recent improvements[edit]

VisualEditor is now substantially faster. In many cases, opening the page in VisualEditor is now faster than opening it in the wikitext editor. The new system has improved the code speed by 37% and network speed by almost 40%.

The Editing team is slowly adding auto-fill features for citations. This is currently available only at the French, Italian, and English Wikipedias. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections by contributing to the Citoid service's definitions for each website.

Citoid requires good TemplateData for your citation templates. If you would like to request this feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

The special character inserter has been improved, based upon feedback from active users. After this, VisualEditor was made available to all users of Wikipedias on the Phase 5 list on 30 March. This affected 53 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including AfrikaansAzerbaijaniBretonKyrgyzMacedonianMongolianTatar, and Welsh.

Work continues to support languages with complex requirements, such as Korean and Japanese. These languages use input method editors ("IMEs”). Recent improvements to cursoring, backspace, and delete behavior will simplify typing in VisualEditor for these users.

The design for the image selection process is now using a "masonry fit" model. Images in the search results are displayed at the same height but at variable widths, similar to bricks of different sizes in a masonry wall, or the "packed" mode in image galleries. This style helps you find the right image by making it easier to see more details in images.

You can now drag and drop categories to re-arrange their order of appearance ​on the page.

The pop-up window that appears when you click on a reference, image, link, or other element, is called the "context menu". It now displays additional useful information, such as the destination of the link or the image's filename. The team has also added an explicit "Edit" button in the context menu, which helps new editors open the tool to change the item.

Invisible templates are marked by a puzzle piece icon so they can be interacted with. Users also will be able to see and edit HTML anchors now in section headings.

Users of the TemplateData GUI editor can now set a string as an optional text for the 'deprecated' property in addition to boolean value, which lets you tell users of the template what they should do instead (T90734).

Looking ahead[edit]

The special character inserter in VisualEditor will soon use the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki will also have the option of creating a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Instructions for customizing the list will be posted at mediawiki.org.

The team is discussing a test of VisualEditor with new users, to see whether they have met their goals of making VisualEditor suitable for those editors. The timing is unknown, but might be relatively soon.

Let's work together[edit]

  • Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
  • Can you translate from English into any other language? Please check this list to see whether more interface translations are needed for your language. Contact us to get an account if you want to help!
  • The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
  • File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

-Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines


Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

:[edit]

Never had any. How. Hafspajen (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It takes one to know one I suppose[edit]

With edits like this, it's hard to wonder who is the troll. CassiantoTalk 21:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps using "troll" was a bit strong, and a dispassionate reading of events would show that both sides did not acquit themselves well there, but talking about another editor shooting cats is (as I said) incredibly inappropriate in any context. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The word "troll" is thrown around far too loosely on this site, and is best reserved for particular editors who have an agenda to disrupt. Haffy, I'm sure, is not one of them. Haffy doesn't have the best grasp of the English language, but he/she does their best; I'm sure they didn't mean anything by it. It's a shame, as we appear to have now waved them off of the encyclopaedia for good. Nothing good ever comes out of disputes like this in my experience. CassiantoTalk 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I respectfully suggest that another "dispassionate reading" is undertaken: what Hafs was trying to type was "... and start shouting at people because their cat died." I cannot see anything that can remotely be construed as "another editor shooting cats" that is stated above. The only thing that is "incredibly inappropriate" is the amount of upset that has (again) been caused to Hafs - s/he is passionate about Wikipedia, gentle and very intelligent; English is not their native language but, as Cass says, s/he does her/his best and s/he certainly manages far better than I could in another language. Lately, s/he has been falsely accused of making sexist comments, being a troll, childish, causing "3 months of drama and non stop aggression" and "months of passive aggressive and intentional attacks" without any diffs being supplied. Is it any wonder that s/he is upset? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't believe that, not when Hafs deliberately corrected "shoting" to "shooting" in a subsequent edit. Had she meant to type "shouting," s/he would have done so. In any case, I'm not engaging on this topic further. What's said is said,a and further comments from me will not help anyone. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ed, well, yes it would help. Your calling Hafs a troll is one of reasons Hafs is so upset, and since it is not true, perhaps apologizing to Hafs would help calm him/her down and persuade him/her to return to editing. It's also true that no one came to Hafs' defense while the other editor continued his attacks. Regarding changing "shoting to "shooting", I have seen many instances of Hafs typing a message, probably quickly, and posting it full of spelling errors, and then going back in and correcting the spelling of some of the words, with some of those corrected spellings still wrong. How would you spell Swedish or French if you were in a hurry and upset on top of that? Hafs has never said a mean word to anyone. I don't think that misspelling was a deliberate act. Hafs is without a doubt one of the most knowledgeable editors on WP. S/He is an expert in art history, landscape architecture, botany, and religion. We really should do whatever we can to persuade him/her to return to editing. CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion is appalling. That's why they put a Delete key on computers. We have all mistyped a character or two. In the context of Haf's message, Shout was understood. This is a Tempest in a teapot. make a mountain out of a molehill or much ado about nothing. This was Tmth, and should have been worked out as a simple Failure to communicate. Haf, her work, contribution and reputation precede her. To take one character out of context is wrong. The totality of her actions should be addressed. To ignore her long, peaceful and transcendent contribution to the encyclopedia and its culture is wrong. Mere bullshit attacks are not proof. They are not convincing. Making an allegation of WP:Trolling is serious business. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Great and invidious allegations demand great proof. There was no intent, and no proof of intent.

I would also note that she is typing in English, not her native Swedish, which has its own subset of problems and distractions.
Let he who is without typos cast the first stone. See Here. 7&6=thirteen () 01:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I came to thank you for the TFA, a "muddled and confusing story", - and didn't find "TFA" on this page, so thought it fit here. Precious again, the Rivadavia-class battleships. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

YGM![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, The ed17. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an email from you, Liz! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I used the "Email this user" link which has worked for me before. Do you get email from other users? I was just saying thanks for accepting my minor edit in the spirit it was intended. That's it! Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I just tested it myself. Perhaps the page didn't fully load? Strange, in any case. Thank you again for the edit! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OTD[edit]

FYI a few {{cn}} tags isn't going to disqualify an article for OTD inclusion. In terms of article quality, we only reject yellow-level maintenance tags and up. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Thanks for posting here. I wasn't aware of that policy—I assumed OTD had similar article quality policies as the other main page sections. Has it been that way for a long time? I'm usually a fan of showing Wikipedia's best faces on the main page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Officially it was introduced almost five years ago (as orange-level and higher), but I believe it was unwritten rule for longer than that. Later I rewrote it to exclude yellow tags as well. howcheng {chat} 02:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Howcheng: Wow, I'm behind the times then. Thank you again for letting me know. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!

May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

DANFS errors[edit]

Hey Ed, don't you know somebody at NHHC? I've been rewriting the DANFS copy at USS Michigan (BB-27) and noticed some date errors on DANFS's end, and wondered if you might be able to contact them about it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think he's at a different post now, but I'll ask who the right contact person would be. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: He advises pinging the NHHC director directly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I hope I'm not stepping on your toes with the South Carolina and Michigan articles - I figured they'd be relatively easy to beat into GA shape. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. If I had ever gotten to them, it would have been after grad school. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you ever want to take them higher than GA, they'll be waiting for you ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. :-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: You have an email! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it tonight. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, btw - I'll let you know what he says. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Good luck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group 1 crest, Deletion of[edit]

I was updating the Carrier Strike Group One article on Wikipedia and saw that the group's crest had been deleted. When I went to the following link:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FINAL_CSG-1_Crest_-_01_May_14.jpg

I found this explanation but I am perplexed by it. As I recall, I get the crest from the U.S. Navy's website, so it is public domain and eligible for Wiki-Commons placement. What is a license tag? Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Marcd30319: It looks like the image didn't have something like commons:Template:PD-USN on the page, so the deleting administrator didn't know if it was in the public domain or not. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

Drop Ed a line on his talk page.[edit]

Drmies told me that I should Drop Ed a line on his talk page, and apologize. OK, sorry. I removed this from my talk. Hope that it is not you who not want to have a conversation on-Wiki, because of it. I really always tried to respect Wikipedia rules, I tried to behave as a honorable human being, and your comment made me both sad and hurt. And a bit sarcastic. Sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Hafs. I apologize as well. The reason for wanting to have an off-wiki conversation is more the terrible conversational interface here plus the benefits of immediate IM-ing than any sense of animosity towards you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Sorry I came over as being off-colour. Here is an unforced apology and a brew. You are a good colleague, and I am sure the confusion in flag usage can be overcome. Kind regards Irondome (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem! See my reply on your talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Littorio protection[edit]

Hey, thanks for stepping in, but I think it's unnecessary - see here. Not the biggest deal to just let it expire tomorrow, but I figured you ought to know it seems to be resolved. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the link, and I hope it's easily resolved! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I posted without reading that link first. Given the result there, I decided to just remove the protection. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding[edit]

I had not contacted to have bgwhite blocked. I had just told that I had been inappropriately blocked again, and much after I had been already unblocked. You just suggested "I really don't know if there is any procedure to block admins for their actions", then I said "no I didn't asked for that, but you can see [1]", then you said "I never saw that before."

Can you retract it now? I never asked you to block him or any other action. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't heard anything back from you. Would you clarify? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 08:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The context I got from that discussion was that you wanted him blocked for blocking you, so no, I'm not retracting anything. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
So that's your opinion. You are talking about the "context you got", not that I had asked for it, though you presented it like I had actually asked for it. I had rather clarified at the same time that it is not what I have asked, but yes it happened before in other case, and it is same as saying that "I didn't asked him to be blocked for warring, but yes people do block others for edit warring." OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I used "context" because I didn't remember the exact wording, but my takeaway from that conversation—confirmed by a note I made immediately after—was that you wanted me to block Bgwhite. Regardless, the case has been opened. Good luck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case[edit]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Robert. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

probably should check out ebay again...[edit]

I've been busy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I'll let him know. Thanks! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2015[edit]

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in March 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Fredinburg[edit]

Hi Ed, I saw your closure as no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Fredinburg. I wasn't sure if you had noticed that the AfD actually hasn't been relisted once yet. Would you consider re-opening and relisting, maybe get some new opinions from editors that haven't spoken yet? Thanks ― Padenton|   18:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I read the discussion as no consensus/keep. Many of the arguments for deletion are based on the idea that he wasn't notable until he died, but the keeps persuasively counter that obituaries in major newspapers pass the GNG threshold. Like I said in my closing statement (which I'll clarify now), we need to come to a consensus on how obituaries should be treated in notability discussions. Until then, we're going to find it difficult to delete these sorts of articles (e.g. Wadewitz). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2015[edit]

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

Signpost feature retitle[edit]

I've reverted your change for 3 reasons: (1) Not all of the extreme changes seen in article counts were drops. (2) There are actually two days the article talks about on which articles were recounted (10 May 2012 and 29 March 2015). (3) Ultimately, the article is about much more than just those two events. - dcljr (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dcljr: That's fine, but can we come up with something more interesting than "a short history ..."? It sounds more like a book and less like something I'd want to click on. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. OK, how 'bout something like one of these:
  • The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
  • Can Wikimedia's article counts be counted on?
Note that "Wikimedia's" may be replaced by "MediaWiki's" and still be "appropriate" (since the article is largely about how articles are counted by the software), but I'd stick with the former term since the recounting issue only applies to Wikimedia's content wikis. - dcljr (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dcljr: I like the first one. It's a bit click-baity, but not so much so that it goes overboard. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Or even "The truth about ...", if you want it to be less amplified? Some might quibble that the truth is a blurred thing at the best of times. The second one falls a little flat, but if you could milk the "count" repetition more like: "Counting on article counts"? Tony (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The "awful" part was supposed to be somewhat ironic, of course — although, to many people, the idea that the reported article counts have been so wrong for so long is pretty awful. OTOH, a plain "The truth" might come off as an attempt to make the account seem more "authoritative" than it really is. As for other "count" based possibilities, how 'bout: "Can Wikimedia count on MediaWiki's article counts?" - dcljr (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(Actually, "A short history of…" was also supposed to have an ironic tinge to it, come to think of it. - dcljr (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

Adam Matthew account check-in[edit]

Hello The ed17 ,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Adam Matthew through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Adam Matthew account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you, Wikipedia Library Adam Matthew account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Hello from Ling[edit]

HI, I used to be Ling.Nut. You left a message on my talk page a long time ago. At that time, I said I wasn't back. I guess I'm back now. Happy editing. Tks • ArchReader 12:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@ArchReader: Took you long enough. I'm glad to see that you're back in the game. Let me know if I can help you anywhere! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Concern about SP[edit]

  • Ed, I'm concerned about this. It's only serving to further fan the flames, and (IMHO) makes the Signpost look bad. Haf was right about the attribution issue, and Pilot's tendency for copyvio (check his deleted page history if necessary), but since in the course of the dispute both sides have said some very hurtful things, there have been no efforts to reach out and put the past behind us. Continuing the dispute by refusing to link the editor's name, then reverting when it's done, cannot be good for the encyclopedia or editor relations. If someone were to reach out to Haf, maybe apologize, I'm sure they'd be willing to remove content the Signpost editors consider objectionable.
Anyways, for now I've unsubscribed myself from the Post. It was a fun few years, and a lot of the changes have been for the better, but I feel alienated by the way things are managed now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Chris, we've done quite a bit of reaching out to Hafs. All have been rejected or dodged. I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly have no plans to apologize, and I'd much rather that Haf and their accompanying drama stays far away from FC. Links aren't within my purview (remember, I'm not the editor anymore!). I do hope that you'll reconsider and come back to the SP at some point; you know that I consider you a friend, and working with you is always a pleasure. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I know you're not the editor anymore, but I also know that you would not let personal feelings interfere with running the Signpost. The diff I linked above, however... it's concerning. At the very least it would be nice if nobody stirred the pot anymore. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On another matter, I don't know what the connection is between WP and Wikiwand, but it appears that articles that have been deleted for BLP violations are still visible on Wikiwand (at least in one instance). Maybe there's an article in that? (sorry, I mean a 'news' article!) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crisco, to my knowledge, it's not a personal vendetta. Gamaliel doesn't feel that it's acceptable to link to a user whose talk page hosts attacks on SP contributors.
  • You may be right, but deleting a thread from a public forum in which one's actions are questioned is not necessarily a good sign. But I'll drop it for now... hopefully the issue won't repeat itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to restore it and we can pointlessly slug it out some more there if you think that is a productive use of our time. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Or you can self-revert. Then, we can let it get archived, like most of the (many) disputes which have happened on the Signpost talk page. Much more transparent. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Xanth, Wikiwand and WP are two different things. :-p Wikiwand is a (quickly growing) app that takes WP text and makes it easier to read. I suspect that they just don't update their database every few minutes to check for deleted articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, right. This talk page was updated on Wikiwand 17 May. The other page was deleted 21 days ago, but of course the update cycle may be longer, depending on the last edit made. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of the Wikipedia mirrors and whatnot take a while... some actually host all of the deleted pages, too. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Crisco 1492: Ed tells me you are a reasonable person, so I am willing to hear your constructive concerns about "the way things are managed now". I don't feel that Go Phightins! and I have drastically changed the way the Signpost is run. We've tried to continue what Ed has achieved and he's been there every step of the way devoting a significant amount of time and effort to guide us after his "retirement". Ben and I are the most junior of a five-member editorial board consisting of Signpost veterans. We've made plenty of mistakes, but I don't think we've significantly changed the direction of the publication in any way.
The decision to remove the link was a collective one by the editorial board that we are currently reconsidering, though personally I am not willing to back off my conviction that we should not link to attacks made on current and former Signpost contributors, and we shouldn't make an exception to that because that contributor has been blocked for something or we personally think ill of them. This decision was not made in order to "fan the flames", though it has apparently inadvertently done so, but those flames were definitely fanned by your inappropriate and unfounded public accusations. It is disappointing and distressful to me that one former contributor's grudges continue to the subject of so much drama. It is even more disappointing and distressful that so many editors continue to unfoundedly assert that we have done nothing to attempt to resolve this situation and ignore the attacks on us by this editor and their friends while insisting that we apologize for being the targets of those attacks. As Ed has pointed out, we have reached out many times over the last several months and have been rebuffed every time. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • First and foremost, the link itself does not go to any explicit "attacks" on the Signpost, or editors. Anything even remotely deemable as an "attack" is a click removed, on the user's talk page; negative remarks about the editor in question are likewise a click removed in the Signpost talk page archive, which remains prominently linked. I highly doubt anyone would wander across either side's comments; they'd have to be actively looking.
Second, you weren't being rebuffed; the media through which you offered to discuss the problems was a problem. I personally rejected using Skype back in April because a) I don't trust my internet/bandwidth enough for video/voice calls and b) the time zone is a problem (Indonesia is a damned ways away from Europe and the US, and any time which would be good for both Europe and the US would be the middle of the night for me). There's also the problem that Skype can be very buggy (my own personal experiences in 2007 led me to uninstall it forevermore), and the possibility that personal information can be revealed through the program. IRC, though more anonymous, is somewhat technical, and thus a challenge for certain users. On-wiki may have been best, but AFAIK on-wiki discussions were fairly limited in scope. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
As for the management: transparency. Pure and simple. Over a year and so of editing the SP, Ed never asked me to discuss Signpost problems offline. There were collaborations on stories (which I understand you use Google Docs for now; we used email), but nothing dealing with the internal administration of the publication. Ed's discussions with Tony and other editors, AFAIK, were generally on-wiki as well. A lack of transparency allows (though it doesn't necessarily lead to) a lack of accountability, which I think we can all agree that we don't want. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
These concerns were raised at the time. It didn't have to be Skype, we were open to alternate means of off-wiki communication, but were rebuffed. On-wiki was not going to happen because there was too much drama mongering and the discussion would be inevitably hijacked.
As for our regular off-wiki communication, this was a collective decision which included both Ed and Tony1. We have all found that real time communication makes the production of the Signpost more efficient and allows us to discuss sensitive issues, such as "does including this information in a story violate BLP?" Off-wiki communication between Signpost editors was already happening before Go Phightins! and I took the reins. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I find it questionable that other editors objections to what happened are being characterized as "drama mongering". Phil was trying to comment, contribute constructively, but she felt that her GF edits were being taken as drama mongering, and thus things escalated.
Had discussion of the issue been done on Wiki, there may have been ill feelings, but there wouldn't have been anyone feeling like (for instance) their requests for further discussion were being rebuffed, or their personal information was being sought. Discussion being on-wiki would have also allowed for greater transparency, which is something that we should value in such an open project as Wikipedia. After all, this wasn't a potential BLP issue. The straw that broke the camels back was an issue about how FC was being written, and the behavior of editors (on all sides). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We have a very different view of that conversation. What I see is someone using the issue with Hafspajen as a pretext for attacking me on some other matter completely unrelated to Hafspajen. I feel that I made an attempt to address real issues with someone who was using the conversation as a platform for drama. No one was rebuffed, in fact they were repeatedly indulged even while they were conducting themselves inappropriately. No personal information was sought from anyone. I have no idea what the issues were with "how FC was being written" because no one has bothered to bring them up to anyone on the editorial board, instead preferring to indulge in drama and accusations. If there were problems with "how FC was being written", that should have been the first thing discussed, not silly drama about WP:AE requests and paranoia about us supposedly wanting personal information. There's nothing that we have done, then or now, to prevent anyone from raising issues about the writing of FC on or off wiki. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The individuals in question wanted to discuss things on-wiki (I would have, in the same position, as well). That this did not happen, and you have said repeatedly that you would not have allowed it to happen. The initial part of the April Fools conversation was civil enough – if someone feels like cultural differences are being ignored, that is something that can and should be discussed, especially on an international project. Subsequent responses were an issue, in part because of previous bad blood on the side of both editors.
I am concerned that you scoff at people's intent to prevent personal information from being revealed. It is not paranoia to want to protect yourself in this day and age, and revealing something as simple as one's age, gender, or sex may cause problems (all things which could conceivably be recorded by the software, even without permission). There are editors who are so concerned with not letting personal information out that, at Wikimania, people were wearing stickers saying they didn't want any pictures taken of them. Anonymity is fine on Wikipedia. I may not practice it, but many editors consider it important, and your duty as editor should be to respect such wishes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco, that was because you were doing FC virtually alone. Tony and I, along with a few others from time to time, did all of the NAN things off-wiki in Google Docs. :-) We also didn't have any non-Tony v. me problems that rose anywhere near to the level of this. Had this same thing happened back then, I would have taken it off-wiki as well—not just so that people could feel more comfortable in saying whatever they want, but because real-time communication makes it far easier to solve problems.
We normally use Skype for text chat, actually, and Tony's in Australia—we deal with time zones as well. ;-) The program's come a long way since 2007. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • NAN was more for keeping the publication a surprise, which is why I excluded "collaborations on stories" it in my comment. Issues between editors, however, were (AFAIR) on the talk page. Agree, nothing was this controversial, though for transparency's sake I'd have hoped it would have remained on-wiki.
As for time zones: you and Tony alone was both possible and easily workable, because there were only two time zones to consider. For this issue here, we'd have to strike a balance between Europe (UTC +0), the east coast of the US (UTC+5), the west coast of the US (UTC+8), and Indonesia (UTC-7). So if it were 11 p.m. in Indonesia, it would be 6 a.m. in Europe, 11 a.m. in the eastern United States, and 2 p.m. in the western United States. At 6 a.m. people are sleeping, at 11 a.m. a lot of people are at work, and me talking over a microphone at 11 p.m. would get me some grief from my family. If I were online at 8 a.m. (workable, since I start work at 10 usually), then it would be 3 p.m. in Europe and 8 p.m. in the eastern United States, and 11 p.m. in the Western United States, though again there are issues with work schedules, people having children to put to bed, etc. It would have been considerably more difficult than synching two time zones (though admittedly still possible), and if we took people's personal schedules into consideration, it would be fairly unpractical. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It's obviously harder, but certainly not insurmountable for one meeting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The issues with FC were: Sections that were made by cut and paste direct from the articles, sometimes without coherence. Edits that were construed as inappropriate by some readers. Sloppy English. The work of one editor. The editor's gone. Really, what good would it have done to bring these matters to anybody's attention? They were obvious. It's intimated that the "drama" problems with the editor were "alleged" and that they may return. I should cocoa. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but they were not obvious to those outside of FC. We were not monitoring the page history to see who entered what problematic edit in one particular section, we were focused on getting the entire publication out every week. We depend on the section editor and the contributors to bring such problems to our attention. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, for awhile there it seemed like every time I dropped in, there was a new problem that came out of nowhere.
Regardless, let's move forward. Hafs and WPPilot aren't editing FC anymore, and I can only assume that the page Gamaliel is concerned with will be archived sooner rather than later. Even better, I think that we've got a good section going at the moment: I really don't foresee Xanth and I having problems. While Phightins and I are looking for one other person to help out (as I'm about to run into some time/COI constraints), for the moment, the section is sound. Let's focus on that rather than the past. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Ed. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, but can we avoid not linking/delinking contributors' names in the future? The content to which Gamaliel objected has been archived, so there should be no reason to not link Hafspajen's page anymore. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The editorial board will be discussing this issue during our next meeting. Gamaliel (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. I wasn't interested in pointing fingers or digging up the past, just trying to figure out what went wrong in the process. Xanthomelanoussprog, you do great work on FC and I hope that you feel comfortable bringing any future issues to me, Ed, or anyone else on the editorial board. Gamaliel (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the praise! Hafspajen excels in drawing out the emotional and psychological aspects of art; I hope they return to WP, writing articles. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 25, 2015[edit]

I wasn't clear about this on my talk page ... I did appreciate your edits on this. I agree with your point about "training site" being ambiguous. Your general thrust was what I wanted to do, but couldn't do within the 1250 character limit (without sacrificing clarity). I also agree with your point that part of the problem here was the stuff in the TFA text that didn't come from the lead. I've proposed to Brian and Crisco that we bump the character limit up to 1300 (the WT:ITN guys don't have a problem with that), and that I should try to add stuff to the lead from the article in those few cases where there's not enough in the lead to generate solid TFA text. I'm also proposing that I check on ERRORS at least once an hour for most of the day, and find others to do the same when I'm sleeping. Those three things should fix most of the problems you were dealing with. Thanks for your help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dank, that's not a problem. We've known each other for long enough that I know when you're appreciative. ;-) I only jumped in as a random TPSer, that's all. I'm glad it was all sorted out in the end! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit]

I'd be interested to read the article when it comes out :)[edit]

Assuming it's online. Serendipodous 08:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: I'll let you know! I don't know if the article is using it as an interesting side fact or is its focus. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #3—2015[edit]

VisualEditor-logo.svg
Did you know?

When you click on a link to an article, you now see more information:

Screenshot showing the link tool's context menu


The link tool has been re-designed:

Screenshot of the link inspector


There are separate tabs for linking to internal and external pages.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has created new interfaces for the link and citation tools, as well as fixing many bugs and changing some elements of the design. Some of these bugs affected users of VisualEditor on mobile devices. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

A test of VisualEditor's effect on new editors at the English Wikipedia has just completed the first phase. During this test, half of newly registered editors had VisualEditor automatically enabled, and half did not. The main goal of the study is to learn which group was more likely to save an edit and to make productive, unreverted edits. Initial results will be posted at Meta later this month.

Recent improvements[edit]

Auto-fill features for citations are available at a few Wikipedias through the citoid service. Citoid takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. If Citoid is enabled on your wiki, then the design of the citation workflow changed during May. All citations are now created inside a single tool. Inside that tool, choose the tab you want (<citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-auto>, <citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-manual>, or <citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-reuse>). The cite button is now labeled with the word "Cite" rather than a book icon, and the autofill citation dialog now has a more meaningful label, "<Citoid-citeFromIDDialog-lookup-button>", for the submit button.

The link tool has been redesigned based on feedback from Wikipedia editors and user testing. It now has two separate sections: one for links to articles and one for external links. When you select a link, its pop-up context menu shows the name of the linked page, a thumbnail image from the linked page, Wikidata's description, and/or appropriate icons for disambiguation pages, redirect pages and empty pages. Search results have been reduced to the first five pages. Several bugs were fixed, including a dark highlight that appeared over the first match in the link inspector (T98085).  

The special character inserter in VisualEditor now uses the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki can also create a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Please read the instructions for customizing the list at mediawiki.org. Also, there is now a tooltip to describing each character in the special character inserter (T70425).

Several improvements have been made to templates. When you search for a template to insert, the list of results now contains descriptions of the templates. The parameter list inside the template dialog now remains open after inserting a parameter from the list, so that users don’t need to click on "Add more information" each time they want to add another parameter (T95696). The team added a new property for TemplateData, "Example", for template parameters. This optional, translatable property will show up when there is text describing how to use that parameter (T53049).

The design of the main toolbar and several other elements have changed slightly, to be consistent with the MediaWiki theme. In the Vector skin, individual items in the menu are separated visually by pale gray bars. Buttons and menus on the toolbar can now contain both an icon and a text label, rather than just one or the other. This new design feature is being used for the cite button on wikis where the Citoid service is enabled.

The team has released a long-desired improvement to the handling of non-existent images. If a non-existent image is linked in an article, then it is now visible in VisualEditor and can be selected, edited, replaced, or removed.

Let's work together[edit]

  • Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
  • The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug.
  • If your Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other community wants to have VisualEditor made available by default to contributors, then please contact James Forrester.
  • If you would like to request the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

Quotemark[edit]

I think you need to re-read that sentence: there's “who won Bruce Jenner’s OIympic medals?” ... and where else is there an unclosed opening quotemark? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Oh damn, I only saw the first quotemark. Thanks for having sharper eyes than mine. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

USS Oklahoma (BB-37)[edit]

Hi - found you on the peer review for this article (done way back in 2011) and saw your offer of help back then. Many editors at OMT are inactive now so I'm asking for help where I can.

I'm slowly working on Oklahoma-related articles and this is an important one for many reasons. Could you take a look at it when you have time and offer some suggestions? It's rated start-class, which is clearly incorrect, but I'm not sure it's anywhere ready to submit to GA review. Help? KrakatoaKatie 00:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Amusingly, I looked in the history and found that I wrote the construction section—not that I remember it. :-) I own Phister et al and can verify the references in there if needed. The narrative is pretty comprehensive right now, but we'll need a few more citations. I'd also try to find more sources; Wallin would be a good start, at least for the salvage operation (and I think he has a separate book on it?)—it's one of the two most notable uses of parbuckling. Bonner, Osprey book, and Friedman's "Innovation and Administration in the Navy Department: The Case of the Nevada Design" (on JSTOR) should help; I've been planning on buying the middle one anyway, and I have access to Friedman.
I'd prefer to replace Phister's Pearl Harbor coverage with a couple books that focus on the event. We can also remove some of the less useful sources, like Fitzsimmons, and mine the New York Times for more info. I'll check my other books here for references to the ship when you're ready to start work on it (and if that's now, all the better!). :-)
Also, if you discover why the turrets were still in place after the parbuckling, I'd love to know. As far as I'm aware, turrets of that weight were only kept in by gravity; they would fall out if the ship flipped over. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it funny how the stuff we wrote years ago slips from our memories? I wrote most of Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium and couldn't tell you how I formed the words. I can work on the article now, at least until I have to to go Canada next week for 10 days, and then again when I get back. My admin areas (RFPP, AIV, and PERM) seem to be a little better covered lately. I also have Phister, and while I think I updated all the page numbers correctly, I agree it's a bit overused here. Afraid to say this out loud but much of Bonner's Oklahoma section is available with a search of the free preview at Amazon, which is kind of cheating, I guess, but I'll take it anyway. ;-)
I need to go to the Oklahoma Historical Society and the OU Libraries in July for several reasons; both have beaucoup secondary sources about the ship but I'll look at their primary sources too. The ship's anchor is not far from the Murrah Building site in OKC, and I'll have someone take a photo of the ship's mast next time that someone is in Muskogee. The ship's bell has been fixed outside Science Museum Oklahoma since I was in high school about 80 million years ago. I don't know the story of how it got there, but I'll ask. The museum is easier to get to for me than the park where the anchor is, but I'll try to get photos of both. It's almost impossible to grow up here without at least some understanding of the story of this ship. :-) KrakatoaKatie 10:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: I should have some time to work on the article either this weekend, if I'm lucky, or next week. I've got a few blog posts that I have to write up for the WMF that they need asap. You won't be surprised to hear that I used Google Books to cite Bonner in the Nevada article. ;-)
I normally limit my primary source usage to newspaper and journal articles (speaking of the latter, I should be able to dredge up an account of Oklahoma‍ '​s trial runs somewhere), but if you can find them, I think we should include or at least list them in a "further reading" section. I should be able to find better sources for the inter-war modifications than I used in Nevada, which if you couldn't already tell was my first FA. Stepping back from the content angle for a second, I have a contact at NARA that might (stressing might) be able to get us better photos of the ships than the Navy's standard 740x500-something, and I can check the usual NARA and LOC areas for anything they've already scanned and uploaded.
Re It's almost impossible to grow up here without at least some understanding of the story of this ship, could we run with that? Do you think there's anything on it in sources? We could include a few sentences or a paragraph on the ship's enduring legacy in the minds of the Oklahoman (is that what you call yourselves?) public, perhaps similar to the second paragraph here. For example, it's popular enough for an entire traveling exhibit.
This could be a FA, you know! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
'Oklahoman' is correct. Just don't call me an Okie. Most people here are okay with 'Okie' now and I've tried so, SO hard to get over my revulsion at hearing that word, but to me Okies will always be the ones who left for California, a la The Grapes of Wrath. The term originated as an insult and it's still an insult to me because my great-grandparents stuck it out through incredibly difficult years here. This is just about the only subject on which I'm old and crotchety. ;-)
The photographs are what I'm most interested in seeing in the OHS archives and in OU's Western History Collection. The photo of the port side torpedo damage is incredible - found a ref last night that said in several places a torpedo boat could have passed through the ship. Also found a memoir from one of the salvage divers. Info on the trials would be great, because I've been looking and can't find any.
We do need a section on the ship's legacy. Don't know about an RS on how teachers address Pearl Harbor here but OU might have something. I can look in their microfiche while I'm there. I was mistaken about the ship's bell (it's from the first USS Oklahoma City) but the ship's starboard propeller is mounted outside the museum. It's ginormous. Yeah, this should be improved to FA - it's an iconic ship and it still gets news coverage, currently about the exhumation of the unknowns in the Punchbowl. I've been too busy to do other than admin stuff today but I'll get to work on it tomorrow. I don't think GA is that far away for us, really. I've never been through the review process for higher than GA so you'll have to hold my hand. ;-) KrakatoaKatie 02:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'm not in that part of the South, so I don't have to deal with your people often. ;-)
Torpedoes did some crazy things in WWII. There were a couple cruisers that had their bows taken clean off, and the battleships didn't always fare much better: for example. It didn't help that the ships weren't originally designed with a good deal of torpedo protection. They got bulkheads in the '29 modernization, but they're pretty useless when you get hit by however many hit Oklahoma.
No promises on the trial info—the ship was commissioned during WWI, after all—but I'll get looking. Typically it's searching through pages of Google Books results until I hit upon the article in the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers.
Don't go overboard if you can't find legacy info; it's definitely not going to be needed for FA, but it would be nice. I think we'll be alright with FAC. If it's not ready to go, I'll tell you. :-) GA definitely isn't far away. Honestly, it could probably pass that with just Phister—but then it would be harder to rewrite things for FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 03:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg
Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2015[edit]

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

Histmerge request[edit]

G'day Ed, sorry to trouble you.Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona was used to overwrite Battle of Buna–Gona with this edit: [2]. I wonder if it would be possible for a histmerge to be performed on the article to ensure appropriate attribution? If so, would you mind doing the honours? I made the request at WT:MILHIST a few months ago, but I think the thread was archived without a response about whether it was possible. Any advice or help you could provide would be most appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: It's no trouble at all, really. How does it look now? Tangent: will you please finally let me or another Milhister nominate you for adminship? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
G'day, Ed, thanks very much for that. Looks good. Regarding adminship, actually I have been thinking about it recently, but unfortunately I'm not sure I've got the time at the moment. I appreciate the offer; maybe something in the future. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: The moment you decide that you have the time, let me know and I (or anyone else in Milhist, really) will happily write you (a) nomination(s)! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2, 2015[edit]

Ed, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: I'm planning to nominate that in year or two for Chile's Navy Day (May 17). Could the TFA coords select a different article? I'll be happy to store the blurb in my userspace to save you future work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we have a big backlog of Milhist articles waiting to be TFA, and they can't all wait for a particular date in the relatively distant future. I like to meet such requests if I can, and if it was required for a specific date in a month or two, OK, I'd change it, but "in a year or two" doesn't in my view justify the change. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Then run another Milhist article in its place? I have a list of when I'd like to run these articles, albeit one I almost forgot to look at for Rivadavia. In any case, since when has TFA disregarded the wishes of article writers? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, you select one from the MilHist list for this date, that you are absolutely sure is not going to have someone complaining that they'd rather see it on another date. It's not a question of disregarding the wishes of article writers, but we can't be mind-readers about their intentions. As fewer nominations are made at TFAR, co-ordinators are having to make more and more choices, and it is a considerable pain in the arse to have to change a nomination once it's been made. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: 1) There's plenty to choose from; all it takes to lessen your workload is to post a message on an editor's talk page asking if they would be okay with x article appearing on the main page on y date. Or for an alternative approach, post a message on an editor's talk page asking if they have any articles they'd want to run on y date. 2) I'll be happy to pick a different one to run on this date and come up with a blurb for it. I'll send a couple messages shortly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: @Dank: Ed alerted me to this discussion. How about running Air raids on Japan on 2 July? We're currently passing through the 70th anniversary of that campaign, so any day in July would do the trick, and the earlier the better given that I imagine the article on the atomic bombings will run on the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I will run the air raids article on 2 July. As explained on Nick's talk page, deference to the wishes of article writers cannot be the only factor in selecting TFAs. We have to try to ensure that the range of TFAs is properly representative of the range of available featured articles. That means scheduling around 6 MilHist articles a month; if the MilHist people would nominate that many each month, in good time, there would be fewer problems. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. I'll have a go at a blurb tomorrow unless you beat me to it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I do all the TFA columns, Nick, but none of the scheduling. (Although ... I'm going to start inviting some of the prolific GAN nominators to work on a few of them.) It does help when people write their own, because that gives me an idea what they consider important. I make an effort to retain as much of a nom's wording as I can. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Brian and Nick-D. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: @Dank: I've just replaced Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2, 2015. I'd appreciate it if you could copy edit it, and confirm that it meets all the criteria. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For the future, it would help if you, Ed, made use of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. That tells me that there are dates in mind for these articles, and I generally don't schedule them on other dates. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Brianboulton: Ah, I wasn't aware that page went so far into the future. I'll add my proposed articles there. There's a couple others that I'd like to go farther in the future, but that's alright. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

Pk67's blog link is broken at the Signpost[edit]

...and at the WT:Milhist discussion. It seems they may have moved the original Wikimedia blog entry. Thought you'd like to know. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: It's unfortunately a bit more complicated than that. Please see my comment over at Milhist. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Giano[edit]

Do you think it's proper to take a passing swipe at a retired editor in a nice safe environment?[3] For my part I think it's assholish. Oh, and in the context where you did it, certainly sycophantic. Bishonen | talk 08:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

Gee Bishonen, your post is all class. I'm not sure if the loaded question at the start is more "assholish" than the blatant personal abuse at the end. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning that editor there in that situation was unnecessary as they are not party to the case nor participating in the discussion.--MONGO 09:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So, do you think it is acceptable to have a go at Giano in a context that was nothing to do with him at all? Wikipedia doesn't need your kind of drama-mongering, especially when it's just for the sake of trying to impress. Sycophantic indeed. --RexxS (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bish and Rex! It's been too long, but now it's like February 2014 all over again. Remember, Gorilla is an "extremely stupid woman" and I'm her "acolyte," as well as "assholish and oblivious." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My behavior at Talk:Great Stink[edit]

I like to think I can take criticism when I need it, and pay attention when a qualified third party tells me I'm out of line. Would you mind telling me what I did to make you think I was baiting, and what I should do next time to avoid it?

Also, is it common for people to be miffed to see a policy they could be expected to already know of linked at them? I always thought it was a courtesy, but I can stop. (I already self-consciously left out a link to WP:BAIT above.) FourViolas (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a start. ;-) It's considered pretty impolite to quote and link policies at people. For example, if I'm going to talk to you (an established editor) about reliable sources, I'm not going to go down the laundry list of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, etc, linking them all. It's one thing to do that in a dispute, and it's another to do that in polite conversation; it comes off as patronizing. Does that make sense? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for letting me know. I've never experienced that personally, but I can understand it and will be more careful. FourViolas (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

EC's page[edit]

Might be better if you back off from comments at Eric's page. You're poking the bear and you know that the situation is not clear-cut, even if you think your opinion of it is correct. There are plenty of other threads elsewhere in which you can comment about more or less the same things, and seem often actually to be doing so. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly clear-cut, but you're right in that I should back away. My disappointment in Eric's behavior is perhaps a bit too apparent. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened[edit]

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Signpost article and blacklisted URLs[edit]

There's no technical requirement to un-blacklist a link temporarily: if you feel like it, you can try a couple of other things. (1) Rollback isn't affected by the blacklist, so you could just use rollback, and in the discussion you're already having, you could note that it was just a technical hack. (2) Delete the page, restore the last version before her edit, make a minor change (so the link's in the current edition of the page), and then restore her edit, which will thus be an old revision. Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I tried to undo it and was blocked. I'll remember those solutions for the future—thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry it won't happen again! Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ed[edit]

RE. this: HOW do I talk to you if you close the thread in which we're talking instead of answering the questions I posed to you within it?--Elvey(tc) 04:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You can always leave a message here, rather than passively aggressively templating me or others. I closed the thread because it wasn't going to end in consensus for any action, and my asking of simple questions does not constitute involvement. If you want my personal opinion, "wiki-hardon" is the type of gendered language that Wikipedians should avoid. We're dominated enough by males as it is. That said, it's not even close to a personal attack. Meanwhile, your retort of wiki-rape was incredibly inappropriate and hyperbolic. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
How many times do I have to ask you to answer the questions I posed to you within the thread you closed before you'll answer them? --Elvey(tc) 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What is this, an interrogation? I answered both of your questions above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What? You answered even one of the questions I posed to you within the (#Personal attacks and threats from Tarc) thread you closed? No. For the fifth time, please answer the questions I posed to you within the thread you closed. You never answered, e.g. "Ed, are you saying it'd be completely civil if I were to say that you (or another user): can't "control your wiki-hardon"?" I also asked you to confirm or deny that that I removed a personal attack by Tarc on User:Coretheapple, with this edit (diff 2) but you never answered... Why are you so adamant about ignoring and hushing up any discussion about Tarc's policy violations? --Elvey(tc) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did, but apparently you can't recognize anything but a direct answer. No, that was not a personal attack by Tarc. No, such comments are not conducive to a civil discussion, but it's not uncivil either. No, Tarc made no policy violations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sweet jesus, is this guy still on about this? Elvey, let's break this down, real simple-like;
  1. I said something crude to another editor.
  2. You replaced it with a message "removed by Elvey" in its place, left me a templated message, which I reverted.
  3. I restored the post, minus the part that was actually crude while leaving the first benign sentence intact.
  4. You restored the "removed by Elvey" tag and posted to my talk page.
  5. I removed that, telling you by response on the talk page and by edit summary that your re-tagging was unwelcome, and that you should immediately knock it off.
  6. You went to ANI, which closed with no action.
The problem is, it...and by "it" I mean "your actions"...should have never proceeded beyond step 3. Can any editor step into to discussions they are not involved in and issue warnings and redaction? Yes. Should they? No. While I certainly have my faults in brusqueness and whatnot, you lack the temperament to mediate any sort of dispute and have no feel whatsoever for when the consensus of a discussion is moving away from you. So this is, as far as I'm concerned, the proverbial "last word". Tarc (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. The important thing is that the uncivil comments were removed. Does it really matter what method is used to remove them or whether a template or nothing at all is left in their place? What should matter is that they are gone and we should all be satisfied with that outcome. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant about ignoring and hushing up any discussion about Tarc's policy violations?

I said to Tarc:

  1. Again, you should have removed it after I specifically warned you in a personalized message on your talk page by writing :This is a personal attack on User:Coretheapple: "You on the other hand can't control your wiki-hardon". (Your #2 above is misleading because it omits that and that you admit elsewhere that you reverted it unread.) But you didn't. Instead you removed it, unread. I ask for apology or agreement that one should not delete such talk page comments unread, but rather WP:AGF and so take them seriously.
  2. Again, you shouldn't have falsely claimed that I didn't remove the personal attack after I had done exactly that. But you did. Your #3 above is misleading because it omits that. You made that false claim several times. And you still haven't acknowledged doing so or apologized to me. So stop lecturing me because it's stupid to expect someone that you spread falsehoods about repeatedly to be receptive to your lecturing.

Clearly he and you don't care about any of that, or what it took for uncivil comments to be removed. Admins should consider how Tarc responds to these requests, as well as the sympathetic comments by Pudeo, and User:Dr. Blofeld. You won't. They won't, since you closed the thread. Such is life. Now let's ALL drop the stick, OK? --Elvey(tc) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Quickly... 1) sentences like Again, you shouldn't have falsely claimed don't make sense, too many double-negatives, 2) you did not receive an apology, nor will you ever, because I do not feel you are owed one, 3) Pudeo and Blofeld are editors with whom I have had past negative interactions with. That is the primary flaw of ANI, in that it invites those with past grudges to pile on. And with that, good day. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There's only one person carrying a stick here still... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I understand that you and Tarc think it's OK for Tarc to spread falsehoods about me and to delete talk page comments unread. That's why I closed this discussion. Which you reopened, which is unconstructive. I understand that, despite that, you don't think you're failing to drop the stick, but rather I am. Oh, the irony! --Elvey(tc) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not uttered a single falsehood about you at any time, now please go back to doing whatever it is you were doing before all this took place. Sorry for piling up your talkpage Ed, I'm done for reals now. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive. On my own talk page. Yeah okay. Tarc, it's not a problem. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The diffs I gave (in my ANI OP) clearly prove you spread a falsehood, Tarc. Here they are:

  1. This is you posting a falsehood (diff 1). Its threatening edit summary is: "no YOU did not remove it, I DID. If you wish to participate in this discussio then by all means do so, but you will cease tagging my comments in any way, shape, or form. Immediately."
  2. Fact is I DID remove it (diff 2). (Where "it" is a personal attack by Tarc on Coretheapple.)
  • As I noted, the consensus is that "What should matter is that they are gone and we should all be satisfied with that outcome." - consensus is clear, and clear consensus is a very good reason to close a discussion.--Elvey(tc) 18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Damn, well sorry to bother one last time, but[edit]

Seriously? He went and added a Pinocchio image to yesterday's closed discussion. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The tendentious lengths Wikipedians will go to always amuses me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it's gettin a little creepy now. Anyways, onto better things...if you're into BLP issues, I just opened up something at BLPN about birthdates of reality tv (my shameless obsession) participants. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Try to enjoy that. I'm not going to touch it. :-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction[edit]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Piker![edit]

Now 1000 miles in 15 hours is a big deal, not no 1332 in 3 days! Denver–Chicago, baby!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I made several stops along the way to see friends and fireworks. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, what is the younger generation coming to these days?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't be jealous! ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)