User talk:Philosopher/Archive 14

Latest comment: 2 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 28 December 2021
Archive 10Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 20

Blacklist

I saw, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Muong Nha to Mường Nhà, Muong Phang to Mường Phăng, Muong Pon to Mường Pồn.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm done for today now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

{{tb|Steven (WMF)}}

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low   to High  , while for quality the scale goes from Low   to High  .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
    Jay Richards       Chris Gerlach
    John L. Martin       Shadow people
    Polly Granzow       Bill Northey
    Larry McKibben   Merge
    Robert L. Emerson       Redwood (color)
    Werner Gitt       Buena Vista County, Iowa
    Mary Easley       Cultural resources management
    Kim Reynolds   Add sources
    Zinag       Lieutenant Governor of Iowa
    Michael Egnor       David Lord
    United States House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture       Mississippi
    Andrew Cashner   Wikify
    C. J. Mahaney       Richard Bond
    Abel Tapia       Howard Mosby
    Henry Bailey (American football)       Nathan Bisk
    Bernard Acworth   Expand
    Southeast Iowa Regional Airport       Nathaniel J. McFadden
    Chuck Gipp       Marcel Rainaud
    Karen Morgan       Waterloo, Iowa

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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Iowa Democratic Party

 

Hey there! I just wanted touch bases with you on the above mentioned article. Before making major edits to articles, please make sure to check the talk page to make sure that it is not a current educational assignment. I have no discrepancy with your edits to the article. However, they usurp the professor's instructions and the educational process of the course. Essentially, the edits that you made are assignments in the POL 214: U.S. Political Parties course at Illinois State University. The student may now either be required to take on a different article as his assignment or covertly sit back knowing that he has all the answers for the final quiz. ;) On another note, if you are ever interested in participating in the U.S./Global Educational Program, we could always use more Ambassadors. The application process can be found here. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't intend to interfere in a course, I was just building an encyclopedia! Seriously, though, I was aware of the course, even if I wasn't thinking of it when I made the edits (see User talk:Sgelbman#Citation templates). It's just that when I see a new editor improving an article I've got on my watchlist, I try to help out a little, especially when I notice such a glaring hole in our categorization scheme while I'm at it. At any rate, that articles still doesn't have much on Republican Party of Iowa, so there should be plenty of room for improvement.

If you really want to avoid such edits, you could consider using an editnotice on the pages of the articles. (I don't know how you'd word it, though, since you'd want to communicate both "don't make edits the student is going to make anyway" and "we don't WP:OWN the article, please feel free to edit it.")

I'll think about applying for that program, thanks for considering me, but am currently involved in a rather large project (only a few hundred edits to go, but they take a while). Perhaps when I've finished that. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I've created a sample edit notice at User:Philosopher/Template Test if you want to play around with it. The edit notice for that page transludes the page itself as its own edit notice, except for the parts in <noinclude> tags, for ease of editing and testing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey, I didn't sense any odd tone in your comments. No worries. In no way do I think you set out to mess with the student's head or anything outside of merely improving the article. I think a template is honestly a good idea and one that I want to propose to the program. There's a somewhat fine line between "don't make edits" and "we don't own". We'd definitely have to come up with something appropriate. I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with gnomish work, but we have had professors and students become somewhat put off by the program, when "in their opinion", editors don't seem to support the coursework and directions of the professor to teach according to the semester's timeline. The Education Program is continuing to progress and tweak as we go along. I think some thought that the talk page template would suffice, but obviously not. As a side note, I have a sincere question. (Please forgive my ignorance.) Why would the Democratic Party article need information about the Republican Party? What do you feel is missing? Let me know and I'll be sure to mention it to the student. Thanks and Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoops! When I said "doesn't have much on" I meant "isn't much better quality-wise than". With regard to a talk-page template message, well, a) people are used to ignoring them and b) with poorly-developed articles (and thank goodness someone is developing them!) there often isn't enough of import on the talk pages to make them worth checking in the first place. An editnotice is in-your-face, which means they should be used sparingly, but which also makes them close to ideal for your purposes, imho. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:GA nomination for Finally Home

Hey, thanks for telling me. I wasn't aware someone could self-check against that criteria. Thanks, and see you around! Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Category creation

Hello Philospher, Any assistance you are able to render regarding the WP maps banner is greatly appreciated - it's all pushing the limit of my wiki abilities :)


Incidentally you look to have made that change live (rather than hidden inside <(!)-- -->) so now the banners link to non existant categories. EdwardLane (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that one was intentional. I'm going to add a documentation page and create the categories shortly, so I didn't see the point of hiding them. (The workgroups are hidden, though.) The tool isn't working, but the category has some preloaded data for the categories. I'll get them done, but it may take a few minutes. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much EdwardLane (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ok looks like I still don't understand something - I was trying to add this to the WikiProject Maps page, but it's a redlink


Basing that on what I see here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Volcanoes/Assessment#Statistics

I've been around the houses with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot including going to the web form and running that (thought it didn't include Maps in the dropdown menu- and I had to enter that by hand). I've visited the webform and used it fine for other projects and not had any problems (though I've always selected them from the dropdown). Also a quick look at the Template itself shows this category Category:Automatically assessed Maps articles doesn't exist yet.EdwardLane (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still getting the categories I created ready - I missed something. I'll get to those shortly. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It should be done. The proper assessment link should be Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Maps articles by quality statistics. If I missed something, let me know, but it should be done. Oh, and you're probably going to want to update {{WikiProject Maps/doc}} with examples from your project - right now all of the examples are from the Iowa project, which is better than nothing, but ... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Nearly there - the table itself on that link doesn't exist though. :) EdwardLane (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I know, but the Iowa version of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Maps was created by the bot itself, so I don't know that it would be a good idea to create it. Running that webform doesn't seem to make it, but perhaps the scheduled run will? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, than makes sense, thanks very much - I'll keep an eye on it - and if it doesn't pop up in the next few days I'll chase the WP 1.0 bot people. EdwardLane (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! By the way, there's a second red link on the Assessment page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Assessment) that should also be created by the bot. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for the barnstar! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You're very welcome, couldn't have got this up and running without you. EdwardLane (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

 

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Philosopher! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Question on User talk:SuggestBot

Hi,

I've been quite busy, so it has taken me a while to get back to you, but I posted a response to your question over on User talk:SuggestBot. Thought I'd stop by here and let you know, just in case. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low   to High  , while for quality the scale goes from Low   to High  .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
    B. Patrick Bauer       Bob Pacheco
    Joseph Abruzzo       Maria Sachs
    Roby Smith       Lisa Johnson Billy
    J.C.C. McKinsey   Merge
    Debra Maggart       Immanuel Velikovsky
    Bengbu Airport       1999 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Doubles Qualifying
    Nathaniel Whittock       Second Ivorian Civil War
    Bill Anderson (Iowa politician)   Add sources
    Joni Ernst       Scott T. Rupp
    John Galloway       Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
    Moscow University for the Humanities       Jeff Kropf
    John Foster (philosopher)   Wikify
    Rick Bertrand       Conversation Storm
    Wendell Erickson       Identity on Fire
    Jon Arthur (radio host)       Julio Robaina (legislator)
    Robert Bacon (Iowa politician)   Expand
    John Light Napier       April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak
    Mark Chelgren       KWWL (TV)
    Lord Mayor of York       History of Virginia

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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pics

Could you please check more on the missile pics which the uploader claims are free use and taken by the ISPR? How is it a copyright infringement? Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. To make things simple, let's just use File:BaburCruise.jpg as our example. The image states that copyright is probably held by the ISPR, but that it is assumed that it is free use. That assumption appears to be made on the basis that the image was released to the public and is used by others on the internet. However, without an explicit copyright release, we cannot use the image. Releasing an image to the public, as with a publicity photo, is not a release of copyright, nor is publication on a website. Likewise, others' usage is not evidence of a release because they could be using it under a claim of fair use or they could be violating copyright themselves. Barring a specific source for the image and an explicit copyright release, we have to assume that the image is fully copyrighted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Iowa Congressional Districts, 2012-2022.svg

Were you going to throw county borders/names on here? Otherwise we could easily color File:Iowa counties map.png or File:Blank Iowa county map.png since the districts are entire county based and not all crazy gerrymandering. CTJF83 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A good point. Unfortunately, since 99 isn't divisible by 4, there are either 2 or 4 counties which are split, so it isn't quite that simple, though it is definitely doable. Ultimately, though, the current file is just a temporary placeholder until the National Atlas updates its database so we can generate a map like the last one.
Ideally, I'd like to put the county borders on the Iowa Senate and Iowa House ones too, but I'm not quite sure how to do that yet. As a side note, I've just put a request in at the Graphics Lab on Commons for a list of better "map colors" for all three maps to improve visibility. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
They don't have to have an equal number of counties, just an (almost) equal population. Counties in the east have more population, then those in the west, so there are few counties in eastern districts then western. But we can wait for the atlas ones too. CTJF83 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right, of course. At any rate, there are split counties. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Which? :) CTJF83 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me.   I wonder why I thought they'd split them, then. Oh, well; I suppose I'll get right on making/altering that map. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, rather than File:Face-blush.svg, perhaps I should have used   Facepalm . My bad. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
And it's done. File:Iowa Congressional Districts with Counties, 2012-2022.svg. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks great! Thanks!...in your defense, most states split counties for districts, and Iowa does split counties for State House and Senate :) CTJF83 16:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

United States Education Program

Thanks for your input on various student edits and in particular, those of User:Masuhi, under the direction of her professor, User:Sgelbman. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. That said, if you have questions about instructions made by a professor, please make sure to contact him/her through email to share your concerns, rather than through the talk page interface. It is important that we allow the professor to work with his/her students through a specified curriculum. Offering correction to the professor on the talk page, may give the impression that we are either undermining or not supporting the university and the course. Conversing through email allows the professor to make revisions to the curriculum, while saving face with the students. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's always cool to see people interested in building the encyclopedia! If your comment is in regard to logos, I responded on your talk page. If you are referring to the copyright comment, I felt (and still feel) that a direct and immediate correction was correct, since copyright violation is something Wikipedia takes seriously. Ed. note: rephrased somewhat. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Afghans in Pakistan

Hi, can you please look at the edits of Mar4d (talk · contribs) in the Afghans in Pakistan. He is editing with strong anti-Afghan POV, trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan look very bad and make his own Pakistanis look good. Everytime I neutralize his edits he keeps reverting and I'm not in the mood for this childish revert war game. So far he has reverted my edits more than 5 times in less than 24 hours. Thanks.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The thread for this is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Afghans in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the POV-warrior Mar4d again came to revert my edits. I started a nice discussion at the talk page Talk:Afghans in Pakistan#Distorting and falsifying but he refuses to explain anything but rather revert or start edit-war.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a not quite sure that he is still simply edit-warring, since he has only edited once since the block expired, which isn't enough to indicate either edit-warring or non-edit-warring to me. Still, I left a note on Mar4d's page asking him to explain on the talk page why he thinks his version is better. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
His editing in Afghans in Pakistan is disruptive. He is on an anti-Afghan crusade, googling news reports on Afghan refugees living in Pakistan, in which he picks all the bad reports that mention anything negative about Afghan refugees. Even if the news report is speaking about a couple of individuals, he uses it against all the 3 million Afghans.[1] This is pure racism and descrimination as well as W:POV, and his entire edits to the Afghans in Pakistan article is one big W:OR used to make one point, that Afghan refugees are criminals, gunmen, disease infested evil doers, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. This Pakistani POV-warrior wants the Afghans in Pakistan article to present ALL the negative things about Afghans so that people who read it will look at Afghans with disgust. He is basically trying to say with his words that Pakistan is a country like the West (see this copyright infringement of his[2] [3] [4]), all of its 180 milllion people are educated and very good people, and that all the problems in Pakistan are because of the 3 million Afghan refugees. This is pure nonsense, nearly all the Afghan refugees lived and live in isolated refugee camps in the mountains near the Afghan border (click on the official UNHCR map for details) and the majority of them don't to go much into Pakistani cities. I'm an expert on this region and that's why I don't provide you with source to convince you. If you look at all the major terrorism related incidents world wide, nearly all of them involved Pakistanis (i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Aimal Qazi, Faisal Shahzad, Aafia Siddiqui, Ramzi Yousef, 7 July 2005 London bombings....) and if you look at all the biggest international crooks you'll find many Pakistanis among them (i.e. Agha Hasan Abedi, founder of Bank of Credit and Commerce International) but Mar4d wants to blame the poor Afghan refugees. These refugees all day think about getting their family fed.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue was already raised at the NPOV noticeboard, as mentioned above, so I'm not going to get any more involved at present. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lists of Russians

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Thx

Thanks for creating the redirect. Whether the original article gets deleted or not, I dislike the aesthetics of an article existing, but a minor spelling variant showing an "Article deleted" message. Personally I'm not opposed to the prod deletion since it's unreferenced, hence impossible for any expansion on the topic. I did a little googling including on books.google.com, but found no concrete references at all, other than to American History X, which was a surprise. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving portal visibility on Wikipedia

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

19th century

I am wondering if you are going to semi the article or should I ask someone else?..Modernist (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it, one more question first (at that page). Sorry I hadn't noticed your response yet. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :)...Modernist (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  Done. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants,   The Rambling Man and   Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being   Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are   Gog the Mild,   Lee Vilenski,   BennyOnTheLoose,   Amakuru and   Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles.   Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Jake Wartenberg
  EmperorViridian Bovary
  AshleyyoursmileViridian Bovary

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


15:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

22:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

  Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

20:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


20:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is   The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

  1.   The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
  2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
  3.   Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
  4.   Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
  5.   Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
  6.   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
  7.   Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
  8.   Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

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.

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 WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

20:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

21:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

 

  Administrator changes

  A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

  Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

  Arbitration



Bots Newsletter, December 2021

Bots Newsletter, December 2021
 
BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.

Overall

  • Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these,  Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful ( N2 3 denied,  ? 3 withdrawn, and   2 expired).

September 2019

 
Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!
  •  Y Monkbot 16, DannyS712 bot 60, Ahechtbot 6, PearBOT 3, Qbugbot 3 ·  N2 DannyS712 bot 5, PkbwcgsBot 24 ·  ? DannyS712 bot 61, TheSandBot 4
  • TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebrox noted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
  • Article-measuring contest resumed: The list of Wikipedians by article count, which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by GreenC following a bot request.

October 2019

November 2019

 
Now you're thinking with portals.

December 2019

In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

  • What happens when two bots want to clerk the same page?
  • What happens when an adminbot goes hog wild?
  • Will reFill ever get fixed?
  • What's up with ListeriaBot, anyway?
  • Python 3.4 deprecation? In my PyWikiBot? (It's more likely than you think!)

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iowa political party templates

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Iowa political party templates 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 07:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021