User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 96
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 90 | ← | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | → | Archive 100 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.
Arbitration
- Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
- The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
- Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet. The study is scheduled to end on Monday, January 9, 2023. Please note this is a bit later than the initial estimate specified in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy Sixth Adminship Anniversary!
english variety & date style misplacement
editsee Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. thank u. <_>jindam, vani (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- (beats head on desk) ... that was an edit from 2018. Was there a specific reason you felt you needed to not only POST a note on my talk page but specifically ping me in the edit summary? I'm just filled with love and kindness towards this sort of behavior, of course. (That is sarcasm, by the way.) This doesn't feel very friendly or helpful. While I appreciate gnoming work, the effort that it took to hunt up the edit from over four years ago and then post about it is .. not worthwhile. Please do not do this to me again. If for some reason I've put some template slightly out of some obsessive order, just fix it and move on. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- The things that make us want to take up knitting as a hobby. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Your statement at ANI
Thanks for taking the time to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Offensive comments by Paul Siebert.
Perhaps you aren’t aware of the historical context. In the 19th century Russian authorities controlled most of Ukraine and banned the Ukrainian language in churches, publishing, and public performance, and literally denied existence of Ukrainian nationality.* Today a dictator who claims succession from them uses similar claims, denying and denigrating Ukrainians to justify a violent war,* rhetoric that legal experts say is incitement to genocide.* That’s why I call out false statements denigrating Ukrainian nationality, or that of other colonized peoples, a kind of speech that is committed too often and should not be normalized in Wikipedia discussions.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to call out the worst part of their statement, “Clearly, no Ukrainian (as well as Russian) nation existed in XIX century,” but instead ought to have pointed out that it is equating the victim and perpetrator of a crime against humanity, something like equating the legacy of US slavery to All Lives Matter in a single sentence.
Or maybe you have different views or priorities on my dispute in Wikipedia talk. Fine. I just thought you should be aware of the context, because your response didn’t demonstrate appreciation of implications that I think are important for a public forum on the subject. —Michael Z. 19:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Calling out is one thing, but your framing and attempt to link a wikipedia editor's comments to a modern day dictator (when their comments were purely related to the 19th century and earlier) was escalating the conflict. And that isn't helpful and will lead to people ignoring your comments because you're so obviously into a battleground mode that you can't fairly report things. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I never intended to imply the editor was pursuing a Putinist agenda: I’d be clearer on this in the future after thanks to your input.
- I first informed them why their comment could be found offensive, and their response was to refuse to acknowledge it may be harmful, and double down with apologism. Unacceptable speech in public remains unacceptable regardless of its malign intentions or absence of them. My experience is that permissiveness normalizes that kind of speech. I have seen discussion pages become literally a hostile environment for anyone who might identify as or sympathize with Ukrainians thanks to such comments feeding off of each other. In this case instead of escalating I asked for another opinion at ANI.
- WP:BATTLEGROUND states “Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.” en.Wikipedia has an obligation to support Wikimedia’s Universal Code of Conduct. I don’t think the two contradict each other, and I’m trying my best to respect both. —Michael Z. 19:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Matilda I, Countess of Boulogne
Added a different picture with a detailed description. I hope you think this one is better. ★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- And you're completly and utterly wrong that its bad to have images unless they're contemporary, images are always good, they help readers remember content they have read.★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
- Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.
Technical news
- The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
- In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
- Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 March 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Sigh: not even the basics
Spot checking new nominators at FAC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have to take spouse to an eye doctor appointment in Stevens Point today and we're going to do some much needed errand running (including seeds for the 2023 garden!) so I won't be able to in-depth reply until later... but do you have a link to some examples? Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'll try to summarize some thoughts tomorrow. Exhausted but home. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think the best response I can give is to point to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive84#Re-opening and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kids See Ghosts (album)/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1 ... where my will to submit myself to the culture of FAC was probably broken for good, quite honestly. I still struggle to find the motivation to even look at FAC after that sort of treatment... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- My will was broken after the WikiCup pushback, the pushback on improving sourcing checks, the pushback for fixing obvious issues in the instructions, and watching editors receive barnstars for same. Without even talking about the standard of articles, the talk page environment is what did me in. So I gave them what they wanted (focused my efforts elsewhere), and watched the Oppose column in Mike's stats plummet again. I suppose one can understand the relative newcomers; they don't know what went before them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is the bot reading my mind? Just after I posted that this pops up. I reserve my greatest sadness for what my old friend Tony did, unannounced, in the next RFC, which allowed all the socks to prevail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- My will was broken after the WikiCup pushback, the pushback on improving sourcing checks, the pushback for fixing obvious issues in the instructions, and watching editors receive barnstars for same. Without even talking about the standard of articles, the talk page environment is what did me in. So I gave them what they wanted (focused my efforts elsewhere), and watched the Oppose column in Mike's stats plummet again. I suppose one can understand the relative newcomers; they don't know what went before them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think the best response I can give is to point to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive84#Re-opening and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kids See Ghosts (album)/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1 ... where my will to submit myself to the culture of FAC was probably broken for good, quite honestly. I still struggle to find the motivation to even look at FAC after that sort of treatment... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is spouse's eye OK? Mine had a detached retina last year, and that goes on forever ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the retina expert has said that things are good enough we can stop seeing him for a bit. It was more a concern that it might be heading that way... not yet a tear, thankfully. And it seems to be not getting worse so we're on the "keep yearly regular exams or if it does <list of things> call us immediately" stage. I got seeds too! Now to deal with wood cutting, wood delivery, and getting some more food made up for him to take out when he hits the road again Monday. And then I can get back to work ... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'll try to summarize some thoughts tomorrow. Exhausted but home. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Arbitration case notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Help :)
I hope we can work constructively, and I'd like to invite you to look into this: Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#Białka_massacre. I am frankly confused about a reliability of sourcing and scholars here. There's a work by Edward Kopówka that I can't decide if it is reliable or not, it looks at first glance like coming from the right-nationalist group (it has a Bible quote in the first page, the other co-author is a priest) and has a claim that is criticized by Grabowski but then I notice it has a preface by Polonsky, a scholar that G. endorses. That very claim in that work is also criticized by Dariusz Libionka, a scholar that our article notes is associated with IPN. Seems like a "fun" mess to untangle, could you offer your thoughts? Maybe I am misunderstanding something here due to badly needing to eat breakfast... PS. I linked both works here, they are in Polish but Google Translate can handle pdf's these days I think. If necessary I can provide quotations and translations of relevant excerpts from both works. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- What is the claim? What is this source(s) supposed to be supporting? Are there other sources of better quality that could be used instead? Is this the only source (or the only two sources) that put forth this information and all other sources state something different? Without knowing what the source is being used for, it's hard to judge reliablity. Looking at the talk page discussion, I'm going to guess that this/these sources are probably outliers and thus the best option is probably to not include the information at all. The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos is an excellent source and as unbiased as possible in this topic area - if they don't cover something ... I'd be hesitant to include it. As an aside - we as editors should be wary of using primary accounts from participants - that's what historians do and we're not historians (at least not when we're editing wikipedia), so we really shouldn't even be looking at primary accounts like some folks are doing in that discussion at Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#Białka_massacre. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- The claim in question is about, or to what degree, the massacre of villagers was related to them helping Jews (if they helped them at all). Regarding what you wrote, that's my gut feeling, which is why I revised this mention. What I am curious is whether you'd consider the source by Kopówka, linked above (the one with preface by Polonsky), reliable enough to cite? I removed it from that article, but if it is reliable it could (should?) be restored, right? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's reliable for that information or not because (1) I don't speak or read Polish (2) Reliablity is contextual, and I'm still not clear on the context of this and (3) I'm eyeball deep in about three other outside-wiki projects and am now being dragged into an arbcom case and frankly, I don't have the time to investigate the circumstances of this situation and (4) even if it's a reliable source, that doesn't mean it necessarily needs inclusion - if it's the only source saying something and the weight of other sources don't say that, whether or not the contested fact is included doesn't depend on reliablity, but on weight issues, which, again, I don't have time to investigate. On a quick "off the cuff" statement, I myself would stick with whatever the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos says about this hamlet and the massacre. That's likely to be the closest to the consensus of most mainstream historians on the topic, and given the arbcom case, if I was you, I wouldn't stray away from that mainstream consensus. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- The claim in question is about, or to what degree, the massacre of villagers was related to them helping Jews (if they helped them at all). Regarding what you wrote, that's my gut feeling, which is why I revised this mention. What I am curious is whether you'd consider the source by Kopówka, linked above (the one with preface by Polonsky), reliable enough to cite? I removed it from that article, but if it is reliable it could (should?) be restored, right? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
TFA
 | |
| my stories |
Thank you today for Nigel (Bishop of Ely), introduced (in 2009): "Nigel was yet another of those very interesting but very unknown bishops from England. He was Lord Treasurer, and arrested, rebelled, exiled, fought with his monks, had interesting relatives and had a son who was Treasurer also." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Richard FitzNeal
Howdy,
I don't have a preference for either version (FitzNeal vs. fitzNeal) I just noticed that the F is capitalized in Richard FitzNeal's own article and also here: William of Ely.
Wouldn'T it make more sense to make those articles consistent? Two versions in three articles is kinda meh imo. 165.1.194.41 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The only thing that requires consistency is inside an article. To be honest, consistency in spelling or capitalization is not something that happens before the late 18th century ... so ... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included 
LunaEatsTuna, 
Thebiguglyalien, 
Sammi Brie, 
Trainsandotherthings, 
Lee Vilenski, 
Juxlos, 
Unexpectedlydian, 
SounderBruce, 
Kosack, 
BennyOnTheLoose and 
PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)