User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 100

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Lea Lacroix (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #302
Archive 95Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 105

Wikidata weekly summary #299

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

 
Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . You'll probably never speak to me again. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:LauraHale/Irma Khetsuriani

Please see User talk:LauraHale/Archive 15#Irma Khetsuriani, this article was not moved without a reason and "seems OK" is not sufficient to solve the problems. This is a BLP, we shouldn't be spreading false information about living people in enwiki. Please note that the problems listed at that talk page discussion are not necessarily exhaustive, they were sufficient to remove this from the main page but I didn't check all sources and claims. Fram (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: You don't have a unilateral veto on articles. You can use AfD or cleanup templates (or PROD, but that would clearly be a waste of everyone's time in this case) if you disagree with article content. Please restore the article ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I will NOT put BLP violations in the mainspace. Cleanup the article thoroughly and then put it back, or leave it well alone where it is. Fram (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to; I'm asking you to stop removing entire articles by personal veto, rather than due process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
BLP is due process. Moving BLP violations back to the mainspace is a problematic action, moving them out of the mainspace is what every responsible editor should do. Fram (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #300

22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of BrowseAloud for deletion

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BrowseAloud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

ORCID for pseudonyms?

Hi Andy, I'm trying to determine if there's a clear position on having and using an ORCID for a pseudonymous identity, but have been unable to winkle a conclusion from the documentation I've seen so far. It would be helpful to know so that we don't inadvertently engage in wp:OUTING on a massive scale. Would you be willing to clear this up? TIA, LeadSongDog come howl! 21:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on an author having separate ORCID iDs for separate identities (the example I've heard given is a serious scientist who writes erotica under a pseudonym!), nor (from ORCID's PoV) not declaring the connection between them. Each would, however, require the user to use a separate email address. Note that "The ORCID Registry is designed to discourage more than one account for an individual" [15], but this clearly refers to an individual persona. Do you have particular example of potential "outing" in mind? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No specific case of outing, but as we encourage Wikimedians to add {{authority control}} to their userpages, I suspected the potential was there for those who have an ORCID registered. Many of us do use the same pseud for various platforms. Thank you for clearing up that ambiguity. Perhaps a word or two on the point at the wp article on ORCID might be in order? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
We only encourage them to add them to their own user pages; and they are not automatically populated when there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
True enough, that. Still, data wants to be free, and as we "build the web", associations gradually get forged without intentional interventions. How long until all faces in group photos are auto-tagged by Fb and fellows? Privacy isn't dead, but it's mortally wounded. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Mea culpa

At some XfD or other in the last month, I recall saying something like "This is just some grudge complaint by someone with a history of getting into it with me", about an objection you'd raised (I think regarding the wording of a pointer I posted to the XfD at another talk page). In retrospect, that was cranky, deflecting, and hypocritical on my part, especially after my professing last year a desire for us to get along better. So, I'm sorry about that. I don't quite recall the context, but it was at the tail end of a lot of stressy stuff from various parties all day long, and I was took it out on whoever was handy. I vented in a similar way in the direction of Justlettersandnumbers around the same time span. Kind of a more-than-momentary loss of temper.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have no recollection of the incident. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Using webarchive URLs in CWGC templates

Hi Andy. Sorry if this is splitting the discussion or having it in the wrong place (feel free to move/merge as needed). Following what was said here, I am wondering how to incorporate webarchive URLs into the {{CWGC}} and {{CWGC cemetery}} templates? Also, if you have time, how can we detect 'soft' 404 errors (not being detected by link checkers) such as at this version of Drumcondra Church? That may make sense if you see what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Example edit here. How would I incorporate the archive URL? (in this case, the archive URL is useless, as it is a copy of the search form, not the results - interesting though it is to see what the search form looked like back in 2009!). Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In those templates, you can't (unless the templates are re-written). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #301

19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

 

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick update on maps

Hello Mr. Mabbett, A little over a month ago you asked for updates on the status of interactive maps. There's now a different team taking on the task of getting maps in a more healthy state. The impetus is due to the top requests from the Community Tech wishlist and the need to get the maps codebase up to snuff. This will require a bit of work before anyone's comfortable turning it on for English Wikipedia - given it's size and activity. The team wants to make sure we do some preliminary work before approaching you all again. I hope this helps and sorry I couldn't get more information to you sooner. I'm eager for your thoughts, here, on the talk page for the project, or in Phabricator. Yours, 172.13.199.59 (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Something weird happened and I was signed out while writing that. Apologies. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  Lourdes
  AngelOfSadnessBhadaniChris 73CorenFridayMidomMike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

  Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

  Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

  Miscellaneous

  Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Wikidata weekly summary #302