User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Lastarria
 | Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Lastarria at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus! First, let me wish you a Happy New Year! You will have seen that I have finished copy-editing Lastarria. I think it's in good shape now. I removed some duplicate wiki-links, following the guideline at MOS:DUPLINK, leaving the link at first mention, or at first mention in the lead and first mention after the lead. If you feel strongly that any of those I removed are needed, feel free to put them back in. I have only one suggestion, and that is that you link the word "flux". The first mention is in the last sentence before the table in Lastarria#Fumarolic activity. If you type in "flux" in the search bar, you will get to an article Flux. I don't know if that's the best article to link to or not, but there is quite a list of related articles in the Flux#See also section. Maybe one of those would be appropriate.
Here are the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead:
- There is no recorded eruptive activity, but the volcano displays vigorous fumarolic activity. It is constructed on top of older volcanic rocks and features both andesite and dacite.
If you study the edits I made, you'll see that I changed "features" to "displays" in the first of these two sentences to avoid repeating the verb "features" (it appears in the second sentence). If you prefer "features" as the verb in the first sentence, perhaps we could change "features" in the second sentence to another word such as "contains" or "contains mainly".
Finally, I noticed that a photograph in Lastarria#Fumarolic activity had no caption, so I read the Spanish caption in the image's information and wrote a caption in English. (I used the adjective "vigorous" rather than "violent".) Feel free to change it if you don't like it. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Corinne: Hey, long time no see, Corinne! And New Years. I've linked "flux" to volumetric flux rate. Thanks for doing the scutwork, anyhow! Your other changes seem fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Jo-Jo Eumerus!
Jo-Jo Eumerus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
FAC reviewing barnstar
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the five FAC image reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC) |
Lake Tauca
Jo-Jo, sorry I wasn't more help on the Lake Tauca article. It appears we may get no other comments on the talk page. If I can help with whatever you decide to do going forward, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Thanks for helping anyway. I think that this topic (Andean paleolakes) is kind of too niche to get more than a handful of editors who have any kind of familiarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Licancabur
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Licancabur you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Nate Fish AfD close
Hello. Just out of curiosity, how does a 6-2 vote in favor of deletion, with multiple delete voters citing a failure to meet GNG as their reason, qualify as "the claim of GNG being met having gone uncontested"? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bbny-wiki-editor, I'll leave Jo-Jo to correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like WP:NBASE was referenced as proof of suitability for inclusion, and no one said "but..." in response. Primefac (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
- If that's the rationale, it appears Jo-Jo didn't read the discussion carefully or doesn't understand BASE/N. As a follow-up comment made clear, the person who cited BASE/N did so erroneously. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Greetings, @Bbny-wiki-editor: Sorry, I should have specified that Rlendog's rationale carried the discussion. GNG is about sources, so providing them defeats any GNG-based deletion rationale unless someone contests the sources (e.g by saying that they are unreliable, not independent, that they all lead back to the same source and so on). This didn't happen, instead later voters argued to keep on the basis of WP:NBASE and delete on the basis of the previous AfD (consensus can change, so that does not automatically override otherwise valid keep rationales) or on the basis of WP:TNT and the promotional tone of the article (which is something that can be handled by a cleanup). Hence the keep close and the tagging for cleanup. I see that Galatz has been cleaning up the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Bbny-wiki-editor:: I think the issue is WP:NOTAVOTE. No matter how many people vote in one direction, its the case they make matters. Everyone who came in and just said "per previous AfD" basically did not present an opinion and therefore did nothing for the conversation. There could be debate as to whether or not the qualifier counts as "participating" in the tournament, but Israel has qualified now when they didn't in the previous AfD. The facts change, and therefore they need to be readdressed. Additionally as Jo-Jo mentioned, the complaints about promo, etc have all been cleaned up. I suspect if you look at the page now you will say it clearly demonstrates notability. Article clean up is not a reason to delete, its a reason to fix it. I think we should be thanking Jo-Jo for actually reviewing the arguments presented and making a call based on that rather than simply counting the words delete/keep which seems to happen too often. - GalatzTalk 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, the page doesn't "clearly demonstrate notability" at all. If this is what qualifies as "notable" these days, then just about every good high school athlete in America should have a Wiki page, because good high school athletes get similar, if not greater, media coverage. Beyond that, I thought this place revolved around the concept of "consensus"? This was a 6-2 delete vote, but the closing moderator acted like there was a clear consensus to keep. Very odd. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Um, it's actually "administrator". "Moderator" does not exist on Wikipedia and is something definitively different. I can see you got confused about what "consensus" means; as the relevant section of the deletion policy notes a consensus is not a strict headcount, the arguments provided and evidence also matter. In this case the evidence provided was not contested and thus trumped the delete !votes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Like a lot of Wiki moderators—oops, sorry, "administrators"—you seem fairly thin-skinned. Regardless, you're still wrong on the merits. As I explained above, the person who invoked BASE/N, which you seem to think "trumped" the six delete votes, did so INCORRECTLY. I understand it might be embarrassing to admit the mistake, but that doesn't change the fact you made a mistake. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bbny-wiki-editor, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish by insulting another editor. Jo-Jo has given a reason for their close of the AFD. If you think this was made in error, you are welcome to either file a claim at WP:DRV or re-nominate the page for deletion, though the latter course of action might appear to be an attempt to game the system (i.e. keep trying until you get the result you desire). So if you don't plan on going for DRV, I suggest you leave it be for now. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
- You're not sure what I'm trying to accomplish? I've politely pointed out, several times now, that this administrator's reason for closing the AfD was erroneous—which, for whatever reason, he still can't bring himself to admit or discuss. (For that matter, it's unclear why other people are more active in replying on this guy's Talk page than he is.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, the BASE/N argument was not the one that convinced me to close the AfD as keep; the sources provided by Rlendog were. Different poster and different argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- One essentially local article about the subject and a couple mentions on blogs are now enough to pass GNG? If those sources were so compelling, it's odd that not a single person chimed in to change their vote or to agree the sources were enough to meet GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly, nobody disagreed with them in the AfD. Which is what counts for an AfD close. "Nobody changed their !vote afterwards" is not something I usually consider as many people don't follow up on AfDs they've voted in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Clearly, nobody disagreed with them in the AfD"? Are you being serious here? Those citations were so persuasive that two more people voted delete! after they were posted. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly, nobody disagreed with them in the AfD. Which is what counts for an AfD close. "Nobody changed their !vote afterwards" is not something I usually consider as many people don't follow up on AfDs they've voted in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- One essentially local article about the subject and a couple mentions on blogs are now enough to pass GNG? If those sources were so compelling, it's odd that not a single person chimed in to change their vote or to agree the sources were enough to meet GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, the BASE/N argument was not the one that convinced me to close the AfD as keep; the sources provided by Rlendog were. Different poster and different argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're not sure what I'm trying to accomplish? I've politely pointed out, several times now, that this administrator's reason for closing the AfD was erroneous—which, for whatever reason, he still can't bring himself to admit or discuss. (For that matter, it's unclear why other people are more active in replying on this guy's Talk page than he is.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bbny-wiki-editor, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish by insulting another editor. Jo-Jo has given a reason for their close of the AFD. If you think this was made in error, you are welcome to either file a claim at WP:DRV or re-nominate the page for deletion, though the latter course of action might appear to be an attempt to game the system (i.e. keep trying until you get the result you desire). So if you don't plan on going for DRV, I suggest you leave it be for now. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
- Like a lot of Wiki moderators—oops, sorry, "administrators"—you seem fairly thin-skinned. Regardless, you're still wrong on the merits. As I explained above, the person who invoked BASE/N, which you seem to think "trumped" the six delete votes, did so INCORRECTLY. I understand it might be embarrassing to admit the mistake, but that doesn't change the fact you made a mistake. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Um, it's actually "administrator". "Moderator" does not exist on Wikipedia and is something definitively different. I can see you got confused about what "consensus" means; as the relevant section of the deletion policy notes a consensus is not a strict headcount, the arguments provided and evidence also matter. In this case the evidence provided was not contested and thus trumped the delete !votes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, the page doesn't "clearly demonstrate notability" at all. If this is what qualifies as "notable" these days, then just about every good high school athlete in America should have a Wiki page, because good high school athletes get similar, if not greater, media coverage. Beyond that, I thought this place revolved around the concept of "consensus"? This was a 6-2 delete vote, but the closing moderator acted like there was a clear consensus to keep. Very odd. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Bbny-wiki-editor:: I think the issue is WP:NOTAVOTE. No matter how many people vote in one direction, its the case they make matters. Everyone who came in and just said "per previous AfD" basically did not present an opinion and therefore did nothing for the conversation. There could be debate as to whether or not the qualifier counts as "participating" in the tournament, but Israel has qualified now when they didn't in the previous AfD. The facts change, and therefore they need to be readdressed. Additionally as Jo-Jo mentioned, the complaints about promo, etc have all been cleaned up. I suspect if you look at the page now you will say it clearly demonstrates notability. Article clean up is not a reason to delete, its a reason to fix it. I think we should be thanking Jo-Jo for actually reviewing the arguments presented and making a call based on that rather than simply counting the words delete/keep which seems to happen too often. - GalatzTalk 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Greetings, @Bbny-wiki-editor: Sorry, I should have specified that Rlendog's rationale carried the discussion. GNG is about sources, so providing them defeats any GNG-based deletion rationale unless someone contests the sources (e.g by saying that they are unreliable, not independent, that they all lead back to the same source and so on). This didn't happen, instead later voters argued to keep on the basis of WP:NBASE and delete on the basis of the previous AfD (consensus can change, so that does not automatically override otherwise valid keep rationales) or on the basis of WP:TNT and the promotional tone of the article (which is something that can be handled by a cleanup). Hence the keep close and the tagging for cleanup. I see that Galatz has been cleaning up the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- If that's the rationale, it appears Jo-Jo didn't read the discussion carefully or doesn't understand BASE/N. As a follow-up comment made clear, the person who cited BASE/N did so erroneously. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
None of these did address the sources - unless you consider K.e.coffman's "TNT" reference as an indication that the topic is notable. Overly promotional content is a different issue altogether. Anyhow, I think you want to start a new AfD on the basis that the sources offered in the second are questionable and that there is no other notability claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can now use datasets on Commons. You can see an example that is using this source. [1]
- There is a new opt-in beta feature of a wikitext mode for the visual editor. You can try it out.
- When you update a page with translations on wikis with the Translate extension the existing translations will be marked as outdated instead of removed. [2]
- The new version of MediaWiki was released to all wikis last week (calendar).
- MoodBar has been removed from the Wikimedia wikis. [3]
The liveoption for the Tipsy notice tool has been removed. Gadgets and user scripts which use it need to be updated. [4]
Problems
- Editors who use Firefox 50 might get logged out or fail to save their edits. This is because of a browser bug. Until this is fixed you can enter
about:configin the address bar and setnetwork.cookie.maxPerHostto 5000. Firefox 50 is the current version of the Firefox. [5]
Changes this week
- There is no new version of MediaWiki this week because of the Wikimedia Developer Summit.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
simone ahuja
Would you revert changes back to Simone Ahuja's original Wikipedia entry?
I made changes, but what was there originally was posted well.
Please revert. We need this section back.
Sincerely, Carissa Belford Buckrun10
assistant to Dr. Simone Ahuja — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckrun10 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Buckrun10 - Please read the conflict of interest guideline with regard to making edit requests on behalf of your employer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Buckrun10 - What article is this request about, anyway? User:Jo-Jo Eumerus - What article is this request about, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was directed to WP:Articles for deletion/Simone Ahuja. User:Buckrun10 - After you read the conflict of interest guideline, you may request to have the deletion reviewed at Deletion Review or to have the article provided to you by email or in user space at Requests for Undeletion, but it appears that the article was deleted both for notability reasons and for tone reasons, so that you should not expect that the article will be restored to Wikipedia article space. If you have any further questions about what is appropriate in Wikipedia or about non-neutral editing on behalf of your employer, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Buckrun10: Indeed. At the page linked by Robert, there was a consensus that your article was not suitable for inclusion; I am not going to simply restore it. Your bet would be to write a draft with proof of notability at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was directed to WP:Articles for deletion/Simone Ahuja. User:Buckrun10 - After you read the conflict of interest guideline, you may request to have the deletion reviewed at Deletion Review or to have the article provided to you by email or in user space at Requests for Undeletion, but it appears that the article was deleted both for notability reasons and for tone reasons, so that you should not expect that the article will be restored to Wikipedia article space. If you have any further questions about what is appropriate in Wikipedia or about non-neutral editing on behalf of your employer, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Llullaillaco
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Llullaillaco you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Licancabur
The article Licancabur you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Licancabur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lascar (volcano)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lascar (volcano) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HeyJude70 -- HeyJude70 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2017 (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) 13:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
AfD concern - KJIVA
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus sir- I'm interested in restoring the article KJIVA which was deleted by you following an AfD that you closed. I'm not sure that WP:Deletion Review would be the proper venue for discussing this, as I don't have any issues with how you handled the matter.The conversation that took place was clearly in favor of deletion of this article, so I feel that you interpreted the consensus correctly. Unfortunately though, the editors who voted in the discussion failed to notice some pertinent information about the article's subject. so i clearly explain here that this article is categories in non performing musician it pass WP:COMPOSER please check point no 6, he is composer, record producer & lyricists (song writer). According this point the specific standard reference book is this. The invaluable Resources that wikipedia mention is here BMI Repertoire Search KJIVA. This article also passes WP:NACADEMIC point no. 9. please check this sufficient sources [6] [7] [8][9] [10][11]. Means it is notable in wikipedia to restore this article. According to me this article is deleted means there is partiality with this artist because there are so many articles like this which is still exist in wikipedia for example: G-Enka, Gone Thursday, Jun Sasaki, Tomohiko Kira, Claes Björklund, Sébastien Schuller, Hideo Yamaki, Adam Perry (drummer), Dan Wilde, Ultre, Fujimoto Yae, Sandy Mouche, The Thurston Lava Tube, Pharaoh's Daughter, Zoar (band), Pierrot Lunaire (band), Smilers, Elysium (band), Control Machete, Nine (band), Ruffus, Susumu Yokota, Flesh Field, Candysuck & many more. So i request to you sir please restore this article KJIVA because it passes wikipedia notability Inkitca (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Greetings and a couple of notes. First, other artists having an article has absolutely no bearing on this one - other stuff exists. I have no idea whether these sources would be sufficient to overcome the deletion concerns and would probably defer to WP:DELREV. I'll ask David Eppstein first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- This editor appears to be one in a long line of sockpuppets whose only purpose is to promote Kjiva. The result of the AfD was clear. Best blocked, tagged, and ignored. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Llullaillaco
The article Llullaillaco you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Llullaillaco for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Close on AfD for Emanuel Bettencourt
Did you consult the first AfD on Emanuel Bettencourt (which had only been closed two days before the second AfD was introduced) when making your decision? I'm not questioning the decision which certainly was right based on the votes of the second AfD. However, when looking at two detailed keep votes in the first AfD and no real arguments in the second that respond to these at all, it seems odd to change the 'no consensus' decision. If you looked at both and decided 'Delete' was the way of consensus, I'll defer to your judgment and it will save me the time in trying to bring the article back (even if I think sour grape renominations are wack). As always, thank you for closing AfDs, thankless task that requires a deft hand. Following here for any response. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @AbstractIllusions: Generally speaking, I do not weigh previous AfDs unless !voters explicitly refer to them. Policy, consensus and the facts on the ground can change and each of these things can justify divergent closes from one AfD to another. In other words, I always evaluate AfD closes on their own merits. This case is a bit more dicey though, as it seems that mostly the participants changed, although I am not convinced that a hypothetical AfD combining !votes from both would have been closed differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Now, assuming that you want to contest the close on the grounds that the !voters ignored the evidence you offered in the previous AfD, I think these Turkish sources would perhaps be the point to start from, notability is not tied to sources being in English after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's where I would go. Now to find a Turkish speaker to help me make sense of it! Thank you for just letting me know how you approached it (seems entirely reasonable). Trust your judgement and will take it under consideration when examining more. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Now, assuming that you want to contest the close on the grounds that the !voters ignored the evidence you offered in the previous AfD, I think these Turkish sources would perhaps be the point to start from, notability is not tied to sources being in English after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can now upload WebP files to Commons. [12]
Problems
- video2commons was down for two weeks. This was because of a problem with Commons video transcoders. It is now back up. [13]
Changes this week
- There is a new magic word called
{{PAGELANGUAGE}}. It returns the language of the page you are at. This can be used on wikis with more than one language to make it easier for translators. [14] - When an admin blocks a user or deletes or protects a page they give a reason why. They can now get suggestions when they write. The suggestions will be based on the messages in the dropdown menu. [15]
- You will be able to use
<chem>to write chemical formulas. Before you could use<ce>.<ce>should be replaced by<chem>. [16] - You now can add exceptions for categories which shouldn't be shown on Special:UncategorizedCategories. The list is at MediaWiki:Uncategorized-categories-exceptionlist. [17]
- The "Columns" and "Rows" settings will be removed from the Editing tab in Preferences. If you wish to keep what the "Rows" setting did you can add this code to your personal CSS:
#wpTextbox1 { height: 50em; }You can change the number50to make it look like you want to. [18] - Sometimes edits in MediaWiki by mistake are shown coming from private IP addresses such as 127.0.0.1. Edits and other contributions logged to these IP addresses will be blocked and shown the reason from MediaWiki:Softblockrangesreason. This should not affect most users. Bots and other tools running on Wikimedia Labs, including Tool Labs will receive a "blocked" error if they try to edit without being logged in. [19]
- When you edit with the visual editor categories will be on the top of the page options menu. [20]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 January. It will be on all wikis from 19 January (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on January 17 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
Bungled AfD
Hi Jo-Jo. I'm contacting you as an experienced AfD closer. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaaq Genocide appears to have been created without the appropriate template being used, and I can't see it listed in the AfD log either. Even if this is corrected now, there is several days' worth of discussion that would precede the listing. Is this a problem? I note also that there are accusations of canvassing (and no, I haven't read the whole walls of text!). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Greetings, @Cordless Larry:. Seems like someone put the content of a talk page into an AfD page, to me. I've moved th AfD to the talk space and removed the AfD tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. If the editor wants to start an AfD properly, then they can do it again! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relists at FFD
Hi there, I noticed you've done a lot of relists at FFD lately. Just wanted to point out the admin instructions for FFD, particularly that at FFD, a nomination to delete with no subsequent contributions results in a delete, not a relist. This helps keep the backlog under control as FFDs do not usually receive a lot of participation, so would otherwise just get relisted over and over. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know, @Stifle:. I do sometimes relist while commenting so that the nomination is not lost in the stack. Not certain that this is accepted practice, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, there has been a response to your review concerns for this DYK nomination. Do you think you'll be able to return soon and continue the review, or should I try to find a new reviewer? If the latter, please let me know. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Lake Corcoran
On 19 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lake Corcoran, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a large lake once occupied the Central Valley of California? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Corcoran. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lake Corcoran), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Your GA nomination of Laguna del Maule (volcano)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Laguna del Maule (volcano) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Koh-i-Sultan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Koh-i-Sultan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Laguna del Maule (volcano)
The article Laguna del Maule (volcano) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Laguna del Maule (volcano) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Koh-i-Sultan
The article Koh-i-Sultan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Koh-i-Sultan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Lascar (volcano)
The article Lascar (volcano) you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Lascar (volcano) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HeyJude70 -- HeyJude70 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can see a list of the templates on a page you edit with the visual editor. [21]
Changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 January. It will be on all wikis from 26 January (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ciomadul you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Using talk pages appropriately
Please desist from using Wikipedia as a social media site, as you have done at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. A bit of humour is all very well but this discussion has been closed a few times. As an admin you should be setting an example of how to use project talk pages properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yawn. Not convinced that a comment on the relative popularity of DYK hooks is that harmful. Also, evidently not everybody agrees with you on closing that discussion if you are edit warring about it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please re-familiarise yourself with WP:ADMINACCT. Talkpages are not to be used as chat fora, you should also know that. Your contributions as an admin are under careful scrutiny so it would be awful to be desysopped so soon into your tenure. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Lvinaya Past
On 26 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lvinaya Past, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lvinaya Past was the site of the largest Holocene volcanic eruption in the Kuril Islands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lvinaya Past. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lvinaya Past), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Your GA nomination of La Reforma (caldera)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article La Reforma (caldera) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, I was a bit thorough and critical in the reading of the article, but as you said, it's not up to the same standards you normally follow. It was quite unclear for me in parts. I can help you improve the article if you like, although I don't have access to most of the academic journals. I think the article and topic is interesting enough to make a GA of, so if you can spend some time between the other volcanoes you're writing about, would be nice. I think the category "volcanoes of Central America" is not correct; Mexico is North America, and Baja California for sure, also geologically it's part of the North America region, different from the Costa Rican volcanoes let's say. I will work on the article to solve my own confusions a bit, if you like. Have enough to do myself, that's not the point. Have you done GA reviews yourself? If you like, could you take a look at Eastern Hills, Bogotá, my first nominated article for GA? It's quite extensive, but an interesting read I hope and related to your work on Lake Tauca and the Altiplano in Bolivia? Best regards and a good weekend, Tisquesusa (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Greetings, @Tisquesusa:
- I've never done a GA review myself, largely because I don't feel comfortable at adjudicating stuff I am not deeply familiar with, especially the parts about sound writing quality. And because during reviews I tend to assess each article sentence by sentence, which in a GA candidate with over 110,000 bytes of text is kind of scary. Preliminarily, I'd say that your article would probably pass on completeness reasons, but I didn't check how it holds up against any other criteria so far so far.
- Speaking of La Reforma, seems like you broke the Harv citations on La Reforma with your edit. I've changed the categories to the North America categories. That is going to be the only article this short that I'll send through GAN, fer sure - the next potential candidate Mount Erciyes in Turkey is already longer and I am long from being done expanding it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Postscript - huh, seems like I did send Fueguino in as well and that is even shorter than La Reforma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah sorry for breaking the harv citations, I never use those, so apologies. I have added a table and a reference (I can only read the abstract, you may have full access to the paper) for the Comondú Group (as it seems to be called). What do you think of such a table? Needs to be filled in with more, it was just a quick edit with the available refs included.
- Fair enough on the GA reviews, I see you follow the same course as I did with La Reforma in terms of assessment. Nice. I will review your other volcanoes too, probably next week. Good you write such complete articles on the interesting volcanoes of the world. On La Reforma it's not so much the length, more the amount of information in 1 sentence. Expansion may help the readers more. Especially non-geologists who are not familiar with the terminology. I will work a bit on La Reforma in between the work on Colombia. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- No biggie, harv citations and {{sfn}} gave me no end of issues beforehand as well. I'll look at these tomorrow, in between Erciyes Dagi. This evening my reading topic is Water in California and State Water Project, although I don't plan on editing the articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Postscript - huh, seems like I did send Fueguino in as well and that is even shorter than La Reforma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Mentolat
Hello:
The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Mentolat has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Regards,
DYK for Mount Berlin
On 29 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mount Berlin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mount Berlin, a volcano in Antarctica, has had large Plinian eruptions in the past and is still fumarolically active through towers of ice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Berlin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mount Berlin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Changes this week
- ElectronPdfService will be enabled by default on Meta and German Wikipedia. This is a new way to get articles as PDF files you can download. It will come to more wikis later. [23]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 31. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from February 1. It will be on all wikis from February 2 (calendar).
Future changes
- The Community Tech team will develop more tools to handle harassment of Wikimedia editors. The goal is to give the communities better tools to find, report and evaluate harassment. They will also work on more effective blocking tools. [24][25]
- The Wikimedia technical community is doing a Developer Wishlist survey. Developers can propose ideas before 31 January 23:59 UTC. This is soon.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for KJIVA
Bndu2 has asked for a deletion review of KJIVA. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 05:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Llullaillaco
On 31 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Llullaillaco, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Llullaillaco is a historically active volcano and the highest archaeological site in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Llullaillaco. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Llullaillaco), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.