User talk:J Milburn/archive51
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:J Milburn. 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. |
Orphaned non-free image File:PALogoWeb copy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:PALogoWeb copy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
| A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | ,_frontispiece_-_BL.jpg)
|
|
|
Women in Red January 2023
 
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 January 2023
- Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief
- Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"
- Essay: Mobile editing
- Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022
- Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes
- Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?
- Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!
- CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
January newsletter
 A look at what we've accomplished, working together | ||
|
Happy new year! We head into 2023 with plenty of work to do. We're missing articles on a handful of lichen families, scores of lichen genera and thousands of lichen species. Dozens of important lichenologists are "missing" too. We need to check or update the taxonomy of hundreds of existing taxa articles. Many articles about basic lichen structures and functions are either tiny stubs or badly in need of referencing or updating. There's certainly enough to keep us busy for a good long while! Here's to a productive year ahead. |
 | |
| ||
Kazamzam met last month's challenge and provided an updated reference for the Cladonia squamosa article – which indicated a significantly larger world range for the species than had been previously listed. Nice job! This month, we're looking for someone to replace the dead reference in Ramalina fraxinea (defunct since April 2018!) with one (or more) which corroborates the information that the old reference did. The editor who meets this challenge will get public kudos in the next newsletter. | ||
| Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas! | ||
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.
The Signpost: 16 January 2023
- Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020
- News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion
- In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again
- Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery
- In focus: Busting into Grand Central
- Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100
- Featured content: Flip your lid
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Women in Red in February 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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.
The Signpost: 4 February 2023
- From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function
- News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan
- Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos
- Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter
- Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour
- Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles
- Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea
- Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT
February lichen task force newsletter
The February edition of the lichen task force newsletter is now available. MeegsC (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Decade old page protection on the article Nathan Lewis (chemist)
Greetings. More than a decade ago, you had placed an indefinite page editing protection block on the article Nathan Lewis (chemist) on 26 May 2012 because User:Chaanakya chiraag nataraj (talk | contribs) had some weird professorial fetish at that time by vandalizing the article. Do you think that enough time has passed that this protection can be lifted from this article? If so, would you be able to handle this (or at least tell me how I should communicate this to the correct persons who can make this happen)? Thank you in advance. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. I've removed the protection, but left a note at WP:BLPN. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for doing this since I am just beginning to straighten this article out. It is a good thing that you left a note at WP:BLPN since some stupid high school student in Upstate NY has already tried to vandalize this article. (If they are stupid enough to return, I will just nominate that their IP network be blocked for a few days/weeks since their dumb vandalism have already earned them one strike against their single IP and/or their entire school network.) I am currently going through the article's award section, which is going to be a slow slog since I am also found that I need to update information on the various award pages. So thanks again and to your many past contributions to WP. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
"TSZ" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect TSZ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § TSZ until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Veverve: No objection from me; I've deleted it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. - car chasm (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Carchasm: Thanks for the note, but I'm afraid I don't have time to look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
moral philosophers
Hi. What do think about these deletions? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pirhayati: I don't know who was listed in the categories before, so hard to say. I suppose I'd say that there are plenty of ethicists who aren't moral philosophers, but these categories are disputed. I don't think there's any harm lumping moral philosophers in with ethicists -- and I think the phrase "Philosophers of ethics and morality" is bizarre! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2023
- In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage
- Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?
- Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK
- Featured content: Eden, lost.
- Gallery: Love is in the air
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!
- Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song
Hello again
Hello again. Apologies for this random message. I hope you are doing well. I wanted to reach out to you after I started working on rewriting the Kes (Star Trek), possibly for a FAC and primarily to just improve the article in general. I hope I am not the only editor who cringes when they look back on their old work on here. Anyway, I just thought of you since you helped a great deal with the GAN review, and I wanted to drop in and see how you were doing. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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.
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)
The Signpost: 9 March 2023
- News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?
- Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy
- In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?
- Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter
- Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Category:Latvian black metal musical groups has been nominated for merging
Category:Latvian black metal musical groups has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi J Milburn! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |  |
The article Jessica Pierce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Subject is not notable, no independent sources discuss Pierce or establish her importance.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sagsbasel (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 March 2023
- News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate
- Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians
- In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences
- Featured content: Way too many featured articles
- Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA
- Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?
Reverts at Jessica Pierce
Why did you revert the edits? I improved the lede. I fixed typos. I got rid of redundant information--I am not sure why you want to tell us who published Pierce's books three times but once is enough.
I separated the dates and places of employment from her philosophy because this is an encyclopedia, not a chronistic biography. Anyone trying to research Pierce for her beliefs should be able to pinpoint what her beliefs are without reading through a rambling paragraph about where she worked, when, what books were published by what company, etc. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree that you improved the lead. I thought the lead was fine, but I tried to trim down the lead out of recogition of your concerns. Of course, you just reverted this, and also reverted my addition of a source for a claim you were concerned was unsourced. I did not see any typos that you fixed. Maybe you think that the information is best separated, but I don't. That's why I recerted you, as per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. But rather than discussing this on the article talk page, you reverted me, which looks pretty clearly like edit warring. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The lede was nearly as long as the article itself. You were bogging it down with book titles, dates of publication, and publisher information. Is there a reason that this publication information is so important that you need it to appear three times in the article? And why it certainly needs to be in the lede? Sagsbasel (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pierce is notable for her published work. The whole point of a lead section is to provide "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Maybe the version of the lead I favour included too much information. (I don't think so, but there's room for disagreement about this.) In recognition of that fact, I tried to trim down the lead when you raised concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- So is Stephen King but his lede isn't just a string of book titles and dates. The current lede does give a concise overview of Pierce. It identifies her as a philosopher, it establishes context, explains why she is notable, and summarizes the most important points. A string of book titles does none of that, you would already have to be familiar with the books to know what context they provide. Dates provide no context here. Nor do her publishers' names. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- And this is the sort of thing we should be discussing on the article talk page. It's not the sort of thing that justifies you ignoring the bold, revert, discuss cycle to force your favoured version of the lead (and article structure, and...) into the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am the bold one. You reverting to a seven year old version is not a bold move, it's a safe move. Take the hint, you suck at writing articles. The only people who thought Pierce was notable were psychologists already familiar with her work. Everyone who wasn't a psychology student thought she was an irrelevant nobody. Sagsbasel (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I know you are the bold one. I was the 'reverting' one. The point of the cycle is that we should boldly update, but then, if reverted, start a conversation. Again, please read WP:BRD. And there's no need for this abuse towards me or towards Pierce. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't start a conversation after your revert. Please read WP:BRD again. Sagsbasel (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are asking me to read. You boldly update, I revert. The discuss part: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." There is now a thread on the talk page. I kindly ask you to engage with that thread (which you are doing) and to restore the 'original' version of the article (i.e., the version as of 08:45, 17 March 2023) while the conversation is ongoing. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with you restoring it. (I incorrectly thought you'd gone, otherwise I would have checked with you.) But it does seem to me that she doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Deb (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are asking me to read. You boldly update, I revert. The discuss part: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." There is now a thread on the talk page. I kindly ask you to engage with that thread (which you are doing) and to restore the 'original' version of the article (i.e., the version as of 08:45, 17 March 2023) while the conversation is ongoing. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't start a conversation after your revert. Please read WP:BRD again. Sagsbasel (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sagsbasel, I supported your view, but please don't be rude to other contributors. That's counter-productive. Deb (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Deb: Sagsbasel has been indefinitely blocked by Courcelles. Out of interest, do you think the article in its current state suggests that she doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion? I accept that, after Sagsbasel removed all the secondary sources from the article, it didn't look particularly impressive. But the current article cites dozens of secondary sources focussed on Pierce's work. These include scholarly reviews, scholarly appraisals about her place in the literature, journalistic pieces, interviews, reviews in mainstream media... I'm not sure what more you could want for an article about an academic philosopher! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I think it's okay now. I'm a bit surprised that she doesn't hold a senior academic post though. Deb (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, that's good to hear. As for senior posts... I think that's just her choice. She's decided she'd rather stay out of teaching/admin, instead sticking to writing. Attractive, of course, but I don't know how many academics could actually support themselves like that... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I think it's okay now. I'm a bit surprised that she doesn't hold a senior academic post though. Deb (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Deb: Sagsbasel has been indefinitely blocked by Courcelles. Out of interest, do you think the article in its current state suggests that she doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion? I accept that, after Sagsbasel removed all the secondary sources from the article, it didn't look particularly impressive. But the current article cites dozens of secondary sources focussed on Pierce's work. These include scholarly reviews, scholarly appraisals about her place in the literature, journalistic pieces, interviews, reviews in mainstream media... I'm not sure what more you could want for an article about an academic philosopher! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I know you are the bold one. I was the 'reverting' one. The point of the cycle is that we should boldly update, but then, if reverted, start a conversation. Again, please read WP:BRD. And there's no need for this abuse towards me or towards Pierce. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am the bold one. You reverting to a seven year old version is not a bold move, it's a safe move. Take the hint, you suck at writing articles. The only people who thought Pierce was notable were psychologists already familiar with her work. Everyone who wasn't a psychology student thought she was an irrelevant nobody. Sagsbasel (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- And this is the sort of thing we should be discussing on the article talk page. It's not the sort of thing that justifies you ignoring the bold, revert, discuss cycle to force your favoured version of the lead (and article structure, and...) into the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- So is Stephen King but his lede isn't just a string of book titles and dates. The current lede does give a concise overview of Pierce. It identifies her as a philosopher, it establishes context, explains why she is notable, and summarizes the most important points. A string of book titles does none of that, you would already have to be familiar with the books to know what context they provide. Dates provide no context here. Nor do her publishers' names. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pierce is notable for her published work. The whole point of a lead section is to provide "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Maybe the version of the lead I favour included too much information. (I don't think so, but there's room for disagreement about this.) In recognition of that fact, I tried to trim down the lead when you raised concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The lede was nearly as long as the article itself. You were bogging it down with book titles, dates of publication, and publisher information. Is there a reason that this publication information is so important that you need it to appear three times in the article? And why it certainly needs to be in the lede? Sagsbasel (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 03 April 2023
- From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions
- News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing
- Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid
- Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages
- Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Technical news
- Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
- The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
- A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.
Arbitration
- The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
- A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2023
- News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
- In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
- Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
- Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping
- Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022
- News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
- Humour: The law of hats
- Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
Women in Red May 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2023 lichen task force newsletter
The May edition of the lichen task force newsletter is now available. MeegsC (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
- Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
- Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
- Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.- FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.
Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, 
MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and 
AirshipJungleman29.
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Arbitration
- The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.
Miscellaneous
- The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
Featured article review for Dungeons & Dragons (album)
I have nominated Dungeons & Dragons (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 May 2023
- News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
- In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
- Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
- Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion
- News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
Helen Cowie
Nice work on Helen Cowie (historian). Girth Summit (blether) 09:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Thanks! I read her book Victims of Fashion, which is great, and interviewed her about it for a podcast I manage. (You can listen in here, if you're interested.) Seemed a shame that she didn't have an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, she's a really impressive scholar, her output is extraordinary. I know her through my partner's work, we often go for drinks in the Golden Balls or the Phoenix. Girth Summit (blether) 09:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, J Milburn. Thank you for your work on Ron Broglio. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice job on the article. Well done.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
The Signpost: 22 May 2023
- In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
- Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
- Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
- Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
Women in Red - June 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 5 June 2023
- News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
- Featured content: Poetry under pressure
- Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye
Administrators' newsletter – June 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
- As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
- Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Miscellaneous
- Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.
Category:Italian ethicists has been nominated for merging
Category:Italian ethicists has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 June 2023
- News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing
- Featured content: Content, featured
- Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Axis of Advance albums
A tag has been placed on Category:Axis of Advance albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Administrators' newsletter – July 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.
Technical news
- Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.
Arbitration
- Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
The Signpost: 3 July 2023
- Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Incensed
- Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?
WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,- Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
- Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.
Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Ethics & the Environment moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Ethics & the Environment. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Ok, sure. I'll give it some time over the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I've made a start, and Randykitty said they'll have a look in a few days, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 July 2023
- In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia
- Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)
- Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!
- Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Catia Faria's book Animal Ethics in the Wild notability
Hi, I'm thinking of creating an article for this book, but I'm not sure if it meets sufficient notability yet because I've only managed to find one formal review: https://philpapers.org/rec/BOBCFA
Do you know of any other sources that would help demonstrate sufficient notability for an article? Throughthemind (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Throughthemind: You timed this question well; I've just had my review accepted in Utilitas; I suspect it'll be online in a couple of weeks, but you can see the author accepted version here. The Bekoff's Psychology Today piece or Johannsen's interview as part of the New Books Network are surely citable, but I wouldn't lean on them for determining notability. But two "proper" book reviews (Bobier and I) is probably just enough. I've no doubt other book reviews will appear in time. Faria and CUP have also done an impressive job of gathering pre-publication praise, but, again, I don't think that's going to be helpful for etablishing notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks! I'd say that's enough to make a start. Throughthemind (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Ethics_in_the_Wild Throughthemind (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Great to see! I'll drop in some more references if/when I see them. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Ethics_in_the_Wild Throughthemind (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks! I'd say that's enough to make a start. Throughthemind (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Dolwyddelan Castle
Hello Josh! Thank you for reviewing my DYK nomination so quickly. I can confirm I don't need to review another DYK nom as this is my first nomination, so that hopefully means we're good to go. Best wishes, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, do you know if Siobhan O'Sullivan was an animal rights advocate or was she was animal welfare? There are a couple of confused articles, I would like to sort them out so that they have the correct categories and template. She is currently on the animal rights template. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- This link (her university) says animal welfare [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: She was an advocate of animal rights (in the broad sense at the very least), but a lot of her work was about animal welfare, in part because her work was a little more emperical than that of a lot of people working on animals and political theory. I'd argue that she's an important name in animal rights because of her major role in the 'political turn', which is a mostly rights-y literature. Here's a paper by Tony Milligan that explicitly situates her in that way. Meanwhile, in this coauthored paper, she explicitly rejects the animal rights/animal welfare binary. So I think it'd be fair to classify her as part of both 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare'. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I know some other authors have also rejected the animal rights or welfare classification. It's makes it a bit harder to categorize them at Wikipedia. I know that Marc Bekoff firmly opposes animal welfare but he sometimes works with such groups. I am not convinced with the authors arguments but it is sad to see both authors are now deceased who wrote "The Political Turn in Animal Ethics". Someone you may be interested in is Karen Bradshaw author of Wildlife as Property Owners [2], I believe she would qualify for an article at Wikipedia, I might try and create it next month. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: The Political Turn in Animal Ethics was from O'Sullivan and Robert Garner -- Garner is still alive (to the best of my knowledge!). He's a different person from Gary Varner, who recently died. And yes, I know Karen, but not well. I interviewed her a couple of years ago, and I agree that an article about her would be good. Fun fact: Her book was included in a goody bag for the Grammies! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, I believe I have confused those two authors before in the past. That's a good podcast with Karen Bradshaw, I have listened to some of your other podcasts including one with Michael Huemer. An issue with BLP's with people involved with animal rights or welfare is that they are not all notable so will probably end up being removed from Wikipedia, for example, Jonathan Birch wouldn't qualify for an article, so it would be pointless me spending time creating it [3].
- Most of my article creations are for deceased individuals, I find the historical stuff more interesting and there are more sources. I have created articles for Laurids Smith, Humphrey Primatt, David Renaud Boullier, Herman Daggett, Richard Dean, Herman Daggett, Christian Adam Dann, Wilhelm Dietler, C. W. Hume etc. What's interesting to me is that many of these thinkers have already proposed many of the "new" ideas taken up by recent researchers in the field of animal rights/welfare but these old researchers are forgotten. The problem is that many of these old books written in the 1700 and 1800s were not translated into English. I plan on translating many of these works myself and uploading them to archive.org for free because they are in the public domain. Wilhelm Dietler' book for example makes an early argument from marginal cases that has gone unnoticed. Every year a lot of new papers come out on animal ethics but there is very little to do with historical research. I have a list of forgotten European animal rights writers from the 1700s and 1800s. If I am able to translate the books and put them out there, hopefully modern researchers might cite some of the older researchers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sympathetic to what you say. There are a few 'forgotten' thinkers who are now becoming a bit more familiar to animal ethicists (Porphyry, Salt, Cobbe etc.) and some effort to recognise the animal-friendly elements of well-known thinkers. But I agree with you that there's lots of work to be done.
- I think Birch is Wikipedia-notable, by the way. His work is (as far as philosophy goes) very highly cited, and (as far as I can remember) there's a fairly direct link between some of his work and government policy, so I suspect he meets WP:ACADEMIC. Meanwhile, his book was widely reviewed (eg, 1, 2, 3 (by Michael Ruse, no less), 4, 5 ('review article'), 6 (ditto)) so I suspect he meets WP:AUTHOR. I'll look into putting together an article myself, and we can see if it sticks. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Made a start. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree I didn't realise that, Jonathan Birch has a lot of reliable book reviews I see you have found so I think he would qualify for an article easily. I have just realised that you can actually take screenshots of certain YouTube videos that are uploaded on YouTube under a CC license (example Joey Carbstrong [4]). They are freely licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Therefore in theory your article creations could add a YouTube snapshot such as for Bob Fischer etc. I created a lot of articles and didn't realise this, so I will probably be updating many with images. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, great point. I'll look into that! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Jonathan Birch (philosopher) is now in the mainspace. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for creating the article you have done a top quality job. I was just watching one of his videos [5]. I couldn't find a birth date for Birch but it probably isn't important. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Jonathan Birch (philosopher) is now in the mainspace. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, great point. I'll look into that! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree I didn't realise that, Jonathan Birch has a lot of reliable book reviews I see you have found so I think he would qualify for an article easily. I have just realised that you can actually take screenshots of certain YouTube videos that are uploaded on YouTube under a CC license (example Joey Carbstrong [4]). They are freely licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Therefore in theory your article creations could add a YouTube snapshot such as for Bob Fischer etc. I created a lot of articles and didn't realise this, so I will probably be updating many with images. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Made a start. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: The Political Turn in Animal Ethics was from O'Sullivan and Robert Garner -- Garner is still alive (to the best of my knowledge!). He's a different person from Gary Varner, who recently died. And yes, I know Karen, but not well. I interviewed her a couple of years ago, and I agree that an article about her would be good. Fun fact: Her book was included in a goody bag for the Grammies! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I know some other authors have also rejected the animal rights or welfare classification. It's makes it a bit harder to categorize them at Wikipedia. I know that Marc Bekoff firmly opposes animal welfare but he sometimes works with such groups. I am not convinced with the authors arguments but it is sad to see both authors are now deceased who wrote "The Political Turn in Animal Ethics". Someone you may be interested in is Karen Bradshaw author of Wildlife as Property Owners [2], I believe she would qualify for an article at Wikipedia, I might try and create it next month. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: She was an advocate of animal rights (in the broad sense at the very least), but a lot of her work was about animal welfare, in part because her work was a little more emperical than that of a lot of people working on animals and political theory. I'd argue that she's an important name in animal rights because of her major role in the 'political turn', which is a mostly rights-y literature. Here's a paper by Tony Milligan that explicitly situates her in that way. Meanwhile, in this coauthored paper, she explicitly rejects the animal rights/animal welfare binary. So I think it'd be fair to classify her as part of both 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare'. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 August 2023
- News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server
- In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change
- Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!
- Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!
- In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia
- Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
- Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July
- Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party
Re: Wooloo and Nintendo Life
I'm a bit confused by your recent edit there. Nintendo Life isn't directly related to Nintendo, Game Freak or PETA, they're a secondary source in the same network as Eurogamer. Am I misunderstanding something? Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Kung Fu Man: Apologies, that's my mistake then. I thought Nintendo Life was a Nintendo publication. My logic was that of course a Nintendo publication would say that PETA faced backlash in this case. I suppose there's still a question about whether the source is being used appropriately, but I'm happy to leave that to the GA reviewer when the article is picked up. Consider my objection withdrawn! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Technical news
- The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
- Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)
Arbitration
- The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
- The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.
The Signpost: 15 August 2023
- News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects
- Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them
- Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing
- Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether
- Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed
- Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion
September 2023 at Women in Red
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
DYK for Jonathan Birch (philosopher)
On 26 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Birch (philosopher), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a report by the philosopher Jonathan Birch and colleagues led to cephalopods and decapods being recognised as sentient under the UK's Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Birch (philosopher). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jonathan Birch (philosopher)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Sue Donaldson
There seems to be some speculation online that Sue Donaldson is the mother of MrBeast. I believe this is false information (it's a different Donaldson) but people have said the photographs of the mother match. I don't believe it I think it is just a coincidence as the ladies look a bit similar, but maybe you know more about this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Definitely not the same person. I'll keep an eye on the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, I have also managed to find a lot of reviews so the article can be expanded. The Zoopolis book was widely reviewed, I have counted 14 reviews in total, I have access to about 5 of them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes -- Zoopolis is very significant. It wasn't the first book exploring animals in political philosophy, but it's surely the one that made the topic (minimally) mainstream. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: By the way, page 8 of Foods that Don't Bite Back (first line of the preface), Donaldson says 'I am frequently asked to explain why I am a vegan'. Her account in Zoopolis certainly leaves the door open for at least a few non-vegan foods, but I'd be very surprised if she was regularly diverging from veganism. If you don't think she belongs on the list or in the categories, so be it, but I'd be surprised to see her referred to as anything other than a vegan. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am doing a lot of work on the list of vegans article so I still need to look into Sue Donaldson. It turns out many of these celebrities are not actually vegan, they are on fish and eggs or other seafood. I always suspected as much. From my own personal experience the people who remain vegan long-term, I am talking decades here without cheating are animal rights advocates, most others give it up or end up cheating. Sue Donaldson might be a strict vegan as she is involved with animal rights, I just haven't seen enough sourcing on it. I will look more into it, I suspect you are probably right. I will take a look at her cookbook. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: By the way, page 8 of Foods that Don't Bite Back (first line of the preface), Donaldson says 'I am frequently asked to explain why I am a vegan'. Her account in Zoopolis certainly leaves the door open for at least a few non-vegan foods, but I'd be very surprised if she was regularly diverging from veganism. If you don't think she belongs on the list or in the categories, so be it, but I'd be surprised to see her referred to as anything other than a vegan. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes -- Zoopolis is very significant. It wasn't the first book exploring animals in political philosophy, but it's surely the one that made the topic (minimally) mainstream. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, I have also managed to find a lot of reviews so the article can be expanded. The Zoopolis book was widely reviewed, I have counted 14 reviews in total, I have access to about 5 of them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 August 2023
- From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online
- News and notes: You like RecentChanges?
- In the media: Taking it sleazy
- Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia
- Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties
- Humour: The Dehumourification Plan
- Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday
Administrators' newsletter – September 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
- A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that
[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment
.
Technical news
- Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)
Arbitration
- The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming
local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus
. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged tonote when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful
.
Miscellaneous
- Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
- Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was- Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
Moving this discussion
WJ94 Midnightblueowl and Josh Milburn
If it is okay with everyone, since we are discussing content now, I want to move this discussion to the article's talk page just in case anyone else wants to chime in. Does that seem appropriate to everyone? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- No objection from me! Josh Milburn (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion moved
 | Text and/or other creative content from user talk:J Milburn was copied or moved into Talk: Conversion to Christianity. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
05:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 September 2023
- In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?
- Obituary: Nosebagbear
- Featured content: Catching up
- Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic
Women in Red October 2023
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 October 2023
- News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published
- Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"
- Featured content: By your logic,
- Poetry: "The Sight"
Administrators' newsletter – September 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text:
Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
- Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.
The Signpost: 23 October 2023
- News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?
- In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing
- Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements
- Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!
- Traffic report: The calm and the storm
- News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes
Women in Red - November 2023
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November lichen task force newsletter...
...is available here. MeegsC (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
WikiCup 2023 November newsletter
The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, 
BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-
BeanieFan11 with 2582 points- Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
- Epicgenius with 1518 points
MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points- BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points- Sammi Brie with 520 points
- Unlimitedlead with 5 points
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
- Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
- MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.- MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
- BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
- Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.- MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
- Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JoeyCarbstrongCambridge.png){kind=link}
The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2023
- Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015
- In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man
- Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023
- News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia
- Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
- Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.
- Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare
Administrators' newsletter – November 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
- The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
- There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
- Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
- Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
- Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
- Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
- Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
- An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
- The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
The Signpost: 20 November 2023
- In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
- News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
- Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
- Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
- Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
The article Tanner Anderson (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)