User talk:Rklawton/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

re:Welcome!

you send me a message, and you also undid the edit I had done

I have read trough the articles you send me and do not quite understand what the problem with my edit on Semi-vegetarianism was, you wrote "we don't just add opinions willynilly to our articles. We use reliable sources to support what we write" as the reason of this deletion could you please elaborate on it, as I do not understand what you mean if you mean that opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia, then you're wrong, I quote: "It is okay to state opinions in articles, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. Also, it is a good idea to attribute these opinions, for example "Supporters of this say that..." or "Notable commentator X believes that..."" (from Wikipedia:Tutorial/Keep_in_mind#Neutral_point_of_view)

if you mean that I didn't add my sources, that is because the things I wrote are things I know from my experience in the vegetarian community, which I did not look up just for this purpose, but which I have experienced during my time of being a vegetarian.

also I do not understand why you took down all of my edit's since I posted more than just the opinions section MaxVegetarian (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If you'd like to write about your various opinions, create a blog instead. If you are an expert in your field, then you should have access to various reliable, published sources that support your opinion. Please cite those when you edit. If you have opinions that aren't supported by published sources, then by all means, do not add them here - use a blog instead. The links I've added to your talk page explain more about how to edit and what we're about. Since none of the material you added was cited, I've removed it all. Rklawton (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Undisclosed Conflicts

Hello. How would you suggest I settle these conflicts?JeffBordeaux (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

PR professionals have been debating this issue. Several professional PR organizations have recommended that PR pros refrain from editing Wikipedia's articles entirely and work within the system (talk pages, etc.) to recommend changes. This is the safest bet as it prevents embarrassment to both the PR organization and its clients. In your case, you work for a guy whose very career depends on his ability to self-promote. I recommend you tell him that Wikipedians have caught on, that his articles are being recommended for deletion, and that he seriously screwed up when he thought he could take the work of over a hundred thousand volunteers and use it for his own personal profit. If he has any questions about Wikipedia's views on this, he can contact Jimmy Wales directly via e-mail or through his user account's talk page, User:Jimbo Wales. The bottom line, of course, is when your boss is telling you to change articles, you are working for his interests and not ours, and we simply won't put up with it. Rklawton (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you briefly explain to me how is it that these PR Professionals can be paid to make edits? I have been informed by Local Splash that they had paid User:I'm Tony Ahn for an article that they didn't end up using. They have the emails to back it up that also contain contradictory statements made on his behalf in concern to the Local Splash page. What can I do to get my edits reinstated? Thank you.JeffBordeaux (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Their employer/clients pay them to make edits. However, professional PR organizations recommend against editing articles directly. Wikipedia calls these edits a conflict of interest and highly recommends against doing it (see WP:COI for more information). As for your edits, they won't be reinstated. They were inappropriate and shouldn't have been made in the first place. You're just going to have to explain to your boss what Wikipedia is all about and that you have no control over the situation. Rklawton (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!

This may interest you as a photographer in the St. Louis area. And now the standard pitch: The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, around noon in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Waco

How do you figure it isn't vandalism when someone inserts false information into an article? The linked Wiki article clearly states that the subject was hung legally. Since lynching is an illegal hanging, usually by vigilantes, how do you figure that stating it was a lynching is NOT vandalism? It is a insertion of blatantly false information to push a POV, and that is vandalism. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism is done by vandals. The editor in question is clearly not a vandal and should not be accused of being one. If you have a problem with his edit, address the problem. In this case, it looks like a trivial disagreement over wording. Rklawton (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can You Help?

Rklawton - you helped with my friend as she added links to NCGenWeb genealogy pages to NC counties. We are working together and there is another Wikipedia user who is removing mine and has not cited a plausible reason. Please see my talk page and Cresix's talk page for more info. thank you in advance if you can help Taneya (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Taneya

I've commented in McSly's and Cresix' talk pages. The basic problem is that Wikipedia gets spammers all the time who do exactly what you two are doing - adding similar links to many articles. Thus, the knee jerk reaction is to remove them - and possibly to block the users from editing. What I've done - and what you two can do is explain the value of the links and challenge the editors to find fault with them. Also, read up in detail on WP:EL in order to better frame your arguments and challenge theirs. Is this a lot of work for new users trying to edit the encyclopedia "anybody can edit"? Yes. Sorry. On the other hand, the skills you gain may be useful for future projects, and they don't look bad on a resume, either. Rklawton (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Carolina#NC Gen Web links that you can point to pending a consensus outcome. Thank you. --

Cool, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Delta Force

Why did you revert my edit in the Delta Force page? It is known that there are now four squadrons. 84.221.148.207 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC) "It is known" is not how we operate. We require reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

PRSA

Hi RK. There is an RfC at the bottom of the Talk page that might be a better place for your comment; though the entire Talk is effectively about this one controversy - it is a complex topic.

I think I skipped the Wikipedia issue largely because I could not possibly cover it neutrally, but I guess I will have to, to bring it up to GA. ;-)

Thanks for chiming in. I expect No Consensus to win the day, but some improvements have been made through discussion.

Anyways, wanted to ping you in case you wanted to move your comment to the ongoing RfC about the Controversy section. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Will do. Rklawton (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lawton. Can I get your second opinion on something?

I have been in touch with O'Dwyer for quite some time. He donated an image for the IABC article, provided corrections, etc. and I coached him through submitting some of his concerns to the appropriate noticeboard, which resulted in some of the prior Talk page comments that shaped the current section.

He takes issue with the word "Feud" which is both in the lead and the section title. Well.... it is a feud, a very intense one at that. But do you think the word is unfair or that there is a better (more neutral) word we could replace it with? Or is it fine? CorporateM (Talk) 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest finding a neutral source and using whatever term they used to describe the nature of the exchanges. Personally, I think "feud" is neutral because it doesn't imply blame on either party. Rklawton (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of legitimate content from Pittsford, New York

Regarding this edit: So your self-righteous outrage is duly noted. WP:NOT is a large grab-bag of objections. Are you specifically citing WP:NOTPAPER? WP:NOT#FANSITE? WP:NOTGALLERY? Also in order that your wishes may be obediently and consistently applied project-wide, when will you be WP:AfDing List of Presidents of the United States, List of Governors of New York, List of CEOs of Ford Motor Company, and President of Harvard University? Do you want to delete the United Nations#Secretary-General section, or will you leave that to someone else? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So - you'd compare a list of important people to a list of not important people? Hahahahaha! Too funny. But seriously, thanks for posting this to my talk page. Without your note, it wouldn't have occurred to me to check your edit history and undo a lot of well meaning, but entirely inappropriate work. I hope this doesn't discourage your efforts in the future, but please try to keep your edits encyclopedic - and keep in mind that our articles are not intended to contain indiscriminate collections of information.[1] Rklawton (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As a verification of your claim that "this is an excellent example of what an encyclopedia article should not contain," I strolled over to the reference section at my local library and popped open the 2011 World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 14 to the article on New York State, and lo and behold, on page 313, there is a comprehensive list of "The state governors of New York," in table format, listing, name, party, and term. Same thing for Nebraska on page 110. Perhaps you can contact World Book, Inc. and set them straight so they can get it right in the next edition of their encyclopedia? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I've removed any lists of state governors. I like your short lists of representatives at the state and federal level. At least that's not trivial. Rklawton (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "not important" charge. The test is not whether User:Rklawton, sitting on his throne, deems something important or not. The test is whether the content would help the reader understand more about the subject of an article. I think most people would agree that an understanding of the leaders of an organization or political unit is completely relevant to understanding the organization or political unit as an encyclopedic subject. However, I see you've launched a vendetta designed to undo all the hard work that I've done. Thanks for making this a completely futile undertaking. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind. Trivial lists filled with non-notable people that will quickly become out of date are just the sort of thing we don't need here. Hang around long enough, and you'll understand. I you like, feel free to post a link to the city government webpage containing this information. It might be useful, and we won't have to maintain our own duplicate list. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And you still haven't cited the subclause of WP:NOT of which I stand accused. From your insulting edit summaries, I'm guessing that it's Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections or Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE#Discriminate Lists of Information. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. Check out the link. And if you want to get on the WP:CIVIL bandwagon, feel free to critique your first edit on this thread. Rklawton (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Would that be the bandwagon that started with your deletion of legitimate content out of hand accompanied by the dismissive and insulting "this is an excellent example of what an encyclopedia article should not contain?" -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion your edits to that article were suitable for an encyclopedia. List and learn from more experienced hands - or face repeated frustration. My edit summary wasn't rude; it was brief and clear. If you had questions or concerns, you could have simply asked "why?". Instead you opted for personal insults. Bad plan. Rklawton (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok: Why, given that "reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant" did you wholesale revert legitimate content as "trivia" despite the fact that Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE#Discriminate Lists of Information and Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections clearly apply? And precisely which of the 48 or more objections listed in WP:NOT are the basis for your complaint? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting was necessary as the lists of local functionaries you were providing could not be salvaged. It's nifty to cite essays, but they don't hold the weight of guidelines or policies. Anyone can write an essay, and they hold no weight. Next - Not all lists are trivial - but yours were, as I've already noted, and the MoS doesn't say otherwise. We simply have no interest in maintaining the types of lists that I removed. As for your request for a specific link to the subjection in WP:NOT - I provided it. I don't think there's much more for you that I can do if you're not willing to read what I write and click on the links I've provided. I really suggest you learn from this and move on. Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So I missed the hyperlink which could have been more clearly expressed as the wikilink Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but curiously wasn't. There are three subclauses underneath this objection: Do you believe the edits you reverted are summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, or excessive listings of statistics? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the title pretty much says it all. It's excessive, it's disproportionate, it's trivial, much of it will fall out of date quickly, and a simple link to the information source would suffice. As I said, this is just something you're going to have to live with. Your alternative is to continue wasting your time on a losing argument. Rklawton (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your claim	My response
"It's excessive, it's disproportionate"	According to your own personal tastes, I guess it is. In my opinion, the tables of the chief administrators (and in at least two cases, the legislatures) of the towns and counties that you deleted are legitimate content that helps the reader understand the subjects of the articles.
"it's trivial"	Yes, you unilaterally decided for me that Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE#Discriminate Lists of Information and Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections do not apply. But, you could just as easily admit that they do apply and undo your wholesale deletions.
"much of it will fall out of date quickly"	That's difficult to believe given that most town supervisors spend a decade or more in office these days. Additionally, I added them—why wouldn't I maintain them? Did someone personally burden you with the task of keeping the articles for every town in New York State? I was under the misimpression that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort.
"a simple link to the information source would suffice"	The original sources for most of these lists are the minutes from town or village council meetings and/or records kept by the town or village clerk over many years. In many cases these have been summarized in town histories for which no Google Books preview is available.
"As I said, this is just something you're going to have to live with. Your alternative is to continue wasting your time on a losing argument."	So is Wikipedia:Consensus such complete claptrap that you won't even give the appearance of trying to support it? Seems like you're more interested in steamrolling your way and shutting down any debate before it starts.

You can add one more to the list: we don't accept primary sources. And if you persist in insulting me and using foul language on my talk page, you will be blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. So this is a "might makes right" situation? You can belittle my edits ("this is an excellent example of what an encyclopedia article should not contain"), laugh at me, patronize me, steer me into believing your opinion is destiny, and embark on a campaign of tagging, prodding, reverting, and nitpicking every edit I've ever made with impunity? But if I protest, you'll block me. Something about that just doesn't sound right. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more like personal insults and vulgar language doesn't fly here thing. And that sounds quite right. End yes, your poor judgement leads me to believe a full review of your contributions is in order. Indeed, earlier this month a long-standing editor was finally outed as subtle vandal and banned permanently from this site. I've personally uncovered at least one editor who habitually lied about her edits - with the end result that must of her edits were removed and she was banned from both Wikipedia and Commons. Without such efforts on our part, Wikipedia would disintegrate into chaos. Thus, I would be remiss if I didn't fully review a highly questionable user when I find one. Rklawton (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikify has been deprecated

Hi Rklawton! Just wanted to let you know that the {{wikify}} template has been deprecated in favor of more specific templates, so I reverted your edit to Andrew W. Cordier. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew there had to be a better template. Rklawton (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

QuiBids.com page

Hi Rklawton! Matt Carney here. I work full-time as QuiBids' copywriter and keep an eye on our Wikipedia page, as its a public account of information about my company. I really appreciate the edits you made to the QuiBids.com page I created and the recommendations you made to me as a new Wikipedia user. I freely admit that I created this account specifically to benefit my company but I think that, with some editing to prevent the page from turning into a commercial, it can serve Wikipedia's interest in conveying information that is established and publicly recognized and avoid sketchy-marketing territory.

That all said, I ask that you might have a look at the QuiBids.com page edits made by a user called Objectivesea, who's screwed up some of the links and created some inaccuracies. Calling a business that's accredited by the BBB a "scheme" isn't very nice, nor is likening QuiBids' services to a lottery. I could go into why QuiBids isn't a lottery at length, but the short version is that because bids in a QuiBids auction are all placed by verifiable users, there's no element of chance which means it's not gambling (and therefore not a lottery). I realize that, as a full-time QuiBids employee, I'm probably the most self-interested person involved in the editing on this page, so I wanted to reach out to you to ask for your help and any sort of direction here, as I definitely don't want to be banned from the page, nor do I want the page taken down.

One last little thing about this user's edits: They misspell QuiBids' name! We're trademarked as "QuiBids" with a capital "B" in the middle, something that Mr. (or Mrs.) Objectivesea failed to note. Please feel free to contact me via email any time at matt[dot]carney[at]quibids[dot]com if you wish to continue this discussion outside of your user talk page. Thanks! Matthewacarney (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The page won't come down regardless of the editing. QuiBids has passed the notability test. The question then becomes one of neutrality. This is why it's best you don't edit the page. If you have specific objections, just place them in the article's talk page, and other editors will review them. Rklawton (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! I'll limit my contributions to the talk page then. Matthewacarney (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hey there, thanks for the feedback on my last edit, but Michael does qualify under the Notability standard as he has been featured in national publications such as Wired and Official Xbox Magazine. The work he did for the Indie Game Uprising event has a page on Wikipedia already that discusses his involvement. Considering this and the fact that Wilford F. Hall is on the list without a page, I'd like to request that you revert my edit. I'd love to discuss this further if you wish. Southernilmag (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to you creating an article about this person first. If it isn't deleted, then yes, by all means, add him to the article. Rklawton (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rklawton. You have new messages at Czbiker's talk page.
Message added 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— raekyt 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Czbiker

"Your livelihood is not our concern." - WP:BLP would seem to disagree with you there. It'd help if you explained why users are not allowed to edit while a legal threat is standing and that the person is free to continue to pursue legal action even when not allowed to edit. You're coming off incredibly harsh and it's exactly the kind of attitude that Wikipedia keeps popping up in the press about. Please ease up on this guy.--v/r - TP 17:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing in WP:BLP that states we are concerned about the livelihood of an article's subject. BLP emphasizes the need for high quality, reliable sources - especially for prejudicial material, but it says nothing about making sure an article doesn't convey information that may be financially damaging to the subject. The legal threat is no longer standing (see the user's talk page). The explanation for our policies regarding legal threats is contained within the policy, and I provided a link to that policy accordingly. If you are curious, please read it. Please also understand that it is Wikipedia's longstanding policy to immediately block an account that has made a legal threat. This is not a point we "ease up on." However, when the editor has retracted the threat, we typically restore editing privileges - as I have done in this case. If you have any more questions about this matter, please feel free to ask. Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The part of WP:BLP about not doing real world damage to a subject, that includes financially. The issue isn't whether there are BLP concerns in the article, it's more about your portrayal to this individual that "We just don't care what we do to you." We do care, that's why we have the policy. Also, we do not block immediately. Have you read WP:DOLT? Is Czbiker in the wrong? Yes. Does that justify being harsh and mean? No. The guy cares about his real life reputation and he needs education in Wikipedia policies; not a kick in the face, a block, and a link to a large policy that he is expected to pick the relevant information out of. You've not handled this well.--v/r - TP 17:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation has been resolved. If you are looking for drama for your personal entertainment, go find it elsewhere. Rklawton (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation is not resolved. You're still of the wrong opinion that your behavior was appropriate. That makes the situation alive and active. I am looking for you to have some human decency with living people. If you cannot, then just do not do legal threat blocks. Throwing around "omgz drama" to avoid scrutiny is pretty low.--v/r - TP 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you're going to have to live with the fact that you're wasting your time. Rklawton (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems so since I'm not going to bother with an ANI thread for a first time complaint. But I'll be watching and I hope this talk resonates in your mind next time. Maybe you can use my talk with Czbiker as an example next time. Since it's fairly obvious your done here, have a good day and I hope we don't have to bump heads again.--v/r - TP 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_subject_of_article.

There is a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_subject_of_article.. RNealK (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The matter is closed. Go make drama somewhere else. Rklawton (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Spamming Spree

Dear RKLawton:

What do you mean I've gone on a spamming spree? Everything I have posted to date can be verified. There is no spam here. I don't understand why you are saying this or why you rejected by post on Bucky Halker. Please advise. I am not a spammer and I am insulted that you would suggest such a thing. Toni HalkerTonigirl60640 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This landed on my talk page, but i guess it was intended for you instead Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ignore it from here. Rklawton (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that we received a complaint via OTRS regarding the (correctly) declined AFC submission, as well as the fact that the user's additions to a few articles were (correctly) rejected. The edits were in full good faith, I believe, and I've explained to Tonigirl60640 why they were reverted. Additionally, after researching the subject in question I realized that they meet WP:MUSICBIO, so I created the article with proper sourcing and language, etc. Just wanted to let ya'll know about the happy ending and all that :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just saying thank you for a very good edit of Childhood obesity! Lova Falk talk 08:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, just reverting some poor editing. Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

GEO

I'd be curious as to your thoughts on my bold addition of a new template [2]. I have been adding it to articles on a BRD basis to see if there are objections. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that this notice applies to any corporate article (and to every article in general). I'd rather see the template begin with: "This article is currently being edited by individuals with a conflict of interest." We can then remove the template after a period of six months or so of good behavior. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we have Template:COI when we need to bring down the shame hammer. The idea was for the template to be used on all org articles, not necessarily as a sign of any poor editing, but rather to provide instructions with a neat little "click here" button that starts a request edit. CorporateM (Talk) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I somehow failed to notice the template was on the Talk page. In that case, I like it. Rklawton (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There was some discussion on using it as an edit-notice, but ultimately Ironholds argument was compelling; that many articles already have 3-4 edit-notices, pushing the actual edit frame off the browser page. We talked about potentially doing a test-run with a sub-group of org articles. CorporateM (Talk) 02:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I like the template, though. Drop me a note if it comes up for a vote. Or just continue being bold. Rklawton (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure of the process. Now that it's been discussed and RFCd, I feel it might be ready for that test run. Do you know what the process is to take it to a vote before implementing? CorporateM (Talk) 11:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I sure don't. Sorry. Rklawton (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I'll go check it out. Rklawton (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi RK,

First, having treated flight anxiety since 1982, and being both a (retired) airline captain and licensed therapist, I am recognized as a leading authority on flight anxiety. I was selected to blog at psychologytoday.com. My work has been covered by the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Newsweek (a cover story), the Wall Street Journal, CNN, ABC, FOX and other media.

Second, though CBT is highly effective for mood and anxiety disorders on the ground, it falls short for many clients when they have no control of the situation and no means of escape. After many years of struggle trying to improve CBT so it would adequately address flight anxiety, I stumbled upon a method that produced remarkable results. It was not clear why this method worked until I learned about neurological research at the University of Illinois by Stephen Porges, Ph.D.

Third, being recognized as a - if not the - leading authority on flight anxiety, I was asked by a publisher to write a book on the subject. The book will be released in a few months. It traces the history of the development of this method, from "thought-stopping" to "thought-redirection" to the control of anxiety by linking flight stimuli to signals the Social Engagement System (working completely unconsciously) responds to. When this system responds, it calms the person, either via the "vagal brake" which slows the heart rate (which in turn activates the parasympathetic nervous system) or by inhibiting the amygdala through the release of oxytocin.

Fourth, most of what is on wikipedia about fear of flying was written by me, starting years ago when wikipedia was established. Though you are quick to remove my recent work on the site, you have left my earlier work on fear of flying untouched.

What I posted last night was carefully composed over several weeks. It cited the work of Dr. Porges. The research he has done has led to a book by titled "The End of Stress as We Know It.

Can we work it out for me to send you proposed text and then we can hammer out any differences? Otherwise, information about the most advanced and most effective treatment for flight anxiety will not be on wikipedia.

Please reply to tom@fearofflying.com or call me at 800 332-7359.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capttombunn (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Met isnt actually "free", it's pay what you wish, but you have to pay something.

A point which is mentioned in this link which seems to work while the ref you pointed at does not (at least for me). Personally, I'd put the "pay what you wish" much further down in the article, if at all. dm (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved the text down, changed it, and added a longer description under "governance" dm (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This sounds free to me: "The lawsuit contends that the museum uses misleading marketing and training of cashiers to violate an 1893 New York state law that mandates the public should be admitted for free at least five days and two evenings per week." Rklawton (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep reading - they mention the original law was changed several times, finishing in the 1970 agreement to move to a pay what you wish but you need to pay something model. Believe me, you need to hand over something to get the pin for admission. My favorite part which the article didnt mention was that they suggest $25 and then, the screen flips to say, "no refunds". Personally I'm a member even though I also have access through a corporate membership, it's a great museum which deserves support from its visitors. dm (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I've updated the article accordingly. I also agree that it's a great museum worthy of support. However, one of the things that makes it great is that it is (virtually) open to everyone. I think the article should reflect that. I also think the fact that it's virtually free should go in the lead, but if you don't, I'll accept the compromise you've implemented. Rklawton (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It still is in the head section, but the bottom of the last paragraph, not the first. dm (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Rklawton (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC at WikiProject Freemasonry

This is going out to all who are listed as active members of WikiProject:Freemasonry. We are attempting to determine the "consensus of the project" on an issue relating to categorization. Please see: WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Dispute over instructions at Category:Freemasons and share your opinion. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've replied accordingly. Rklawton (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Shane Carwin

theres an ip you recently blocked User talk:75.114.222.69 that keeps vandalizing the Shane Carwin page could you please block this person people already gave him multiple warnings and he just deletes them from his talk page. Entity of the Void (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Typical. The vandalism has stopped for now. Give me a shout if it resumes, and I'll throw a block on the IP. Rklawton (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that didn't take long. IP blocked. Rklawton (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Marathon bombings

I think you are misunderstanding my comments. My comment was simply that this was an impossibility, this was the editor's first edit, and that the things they are complaining about simply didn't exist. This is why I asked "what are you talking about?" Either they were meaning to add this to the other article, trolling, or something else, but their comment didn't fit the situation, in any way. I'm not sure if you thought I was antagonizing him or what, but that would require a leap that doesn't exist in my history as admin nor editor here. If someone says "I did this", and I can't find evidence (and have evidence it is literally impossible), I will naturally ask. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor was asking us to not include prurient details to this or other articles. He was speaking in general about what we should do and what he would do. He'll be able to edit this article once the timer is up, and he can edit most other articles now. His current ability to edit isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not our articles should include prurient details, and we should have focused just on that. Rklawton (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Now that he has explained his edit, it was possible to actually address his concern and assure him that it was our intent to do just that. I'm still stymied as to how you find offense with what was a simple question, particularly after he said "'Those details have no genuine value and I have removed them as they contribute nothing to the article", the reason I raised the issue. You seem to be reading more into my comment than was intended, or is necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Premature warning

Hey, just a heads up, but I think you warned Artemis-Arethusa (talk · contribs) a bit prematurely; they made a single edit on Books LLC that you reverted, but they didn't appear to be edit warring with anyone. They brought it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#help, please. I fear I may have offended someone out of a bit of confusion about what happened. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article's edit history, you'll see a very negative pattern of edits in addition to reverting without discussion. This editor has a problem, and that problem needs to be addressed. Rklawton (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no such thing, considering the editor has only ever made three edits to the article. Diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aleksandra Efimova may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

May 30 2013

Markturner (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Hi. I edited the Wikipedia page for me to add links to the university press sites for my works. You objected and removed them. I am not an insider and do not understand. Thanks for your attention. Mark Turner. http://markturner.org

Check out my comments on your talk page User talk:Markturner - specifically about your conflict of interest. Basically, it's considered bad form to edit your own article on Wikipedia. This isn't a vanity press. Rklawton (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mandrake00‎ and 3RR

Hi Robert. An editor just brought the above user to my attention. I see you blocked him for 3RR on Veganism. However, there's a couple of things; he was making some really useful edits, including creating Phase compensation, way back in 2007. His account is ollllld. He had clearly edited logged-out to make an ostensibly good-faith edit, you reverted and warned the IP. He then logged in to revert again and you warned him once then blocked on the next one. But you blocked indef - on an old, established account, where an editor is making a good-faith edit (tho' edit-warring)?? I think it's a bit heavy-handed, IMO. Indef on a first offense for 3rr? You know after he logged in, he may not have seen the last message(s) on his IP? - Alison ^❤ 06:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I recommend keeping his account blocked until and unless he satisfies jpgordon's requirements. Rklawton (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Markturner (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is Mark Turner again, http://markturner.org. I am sorry to have caught myself in a whirlpool of confusion. Last night, I made some changes that kept disappearing, and so I remade them as I went, but that seems to have precipitated a cascade I don't follow. Although I was a UNIX sysadmin in early life, I do not know anything about Wikipedia. Someone made a page for me long ago, and from time to time I have edited it to remove factual ambiguity or add links to things like university press sites for the books in the bibliography. I don't know what 3RR is. The editors seem to be asking for more external sources. There are a ton of these on my own webpage, but thought it inappropriate to put them on Wikipedia. I just added, using an IP address login, an external source: David Brooks reviewed my work in an article in The Atlantic Monthly, and uses it in his TED talk. I placed both of these on my Wikipedia page. Is this the right thing to do, or the wrong thing to do? There are people in countries all over the world eager to make such edits. Would it be better if they did them? Markturner (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's better to for you not to edit your own article. You're welcome to make content suggestions on your article's talk page and let neutral editors consider them for inclusion. Rklawton (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you assist in removing the false alert about self-publishing from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Turner_(cognitive_scientist)? Publication details are given for all the materials; they are all university or academic presses. Thanks! Markturner (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your article has four sources. Three of them were published by you. Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you see these sources on the page? ^ The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2001. Edited by Neil Smelser. Elsevier. Pages 2495-2498 ; Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press ; Geeraerts, Dirk, editor. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton de Gruyter ; Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ; Harbus, Antonina. 2012. Cognitive Approaches to Old English Poetry. D. S. Brewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markturner (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Markturner (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion to propose items for inclusion on the talk page. Frankly, I did not know talk pages existed until last night when I saw the alerts and looked into what they might be and where they might come from. So, I have proposed a link for inclusion on my talk page. See following. Are you the one who handles this inclusion? The Case Western Reserve University Youtube page presents a recording of a lecture by Mark Turner summarizing The Origin of Ideas, in press at Oxford University Press. The Youtube URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv_Vu-eaZu0. The Oxford page for the book is http://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-origin-of-ideas-9780199988822;jsessionid=0FE4E1A6F5EEAF972B93DABCB7DCA57A?cc=us&lang=en&

Anyone can edit our articles. Several people have taken an interest in yours, so I expect your suggestions will be reviewed shortly. Rklawton (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Jean Stapleton

You wrote: and "death" is always a top level header.

Absolutely wrong. There are so many that are ===, you better change them all. I will not revert to my fix, because this is too trivial. Kennvido (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bahamians of shared de[s]cent

Hi. I was confused by your recent edit to the article on The Bahamas. The word referring to ancestry is, to the best of my knowledge, properly written as descent (with an S). The word decent (without an S) is a completely different word referring to quality or moral standards. Compare these words to the related words "descend" and "decency", respectively. I changed the spelling back, and also did some rephrasing; please take a look at this section of the article now and see what you think. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

When I reviewed the edit, I noticed that the change was only made in once place rather than throughout the article. Rklawton (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Shane Carwin again

User talk:75.114.222.69 is vandalizing the Shane Carwin page again and he's also vandalizing the John McEnroe page every time someone warns him he blanks his talk page. Entity of the Void (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Updates

Since I work for QuiBids, how would you suggest we go about our company updates? i.e. we're now open in Austria and Italy - Simple edit or addition to add to the page in our history section. Please just let me know. Thanks! --JillWhitney (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi i'm new to wikipedia. I have a question about changing title names. Someone created a page about an historical person but they misspelled his name. So how would I be able to change the title to the proper spelling. Thanks for your help!Zabranos (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On the top-pane there is a bar that has "Read" "Edit" "New Section" and "View History". If you keep following that bar to the right, there is a star for adding the article to your watchlist, then a little tiny down arrow. If you click on the down-arrow, it will show a "Move" option, to move the article to the right name. CorporateM (Talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

History of public relations

Hi Rklawton. I've been working on this article for some time now as the first sub-article of Public relations and have gotten a bit stumped on the Modern era section, because I've having a hard time finding really good sources on the field's recent history. A lot of the most well-respected histories of the field, such as those by Scott Cutlip, were published decades ago. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on what the most credible and comprehensive sources are for the recent past with the internet bubble and social media transformation, etc. I've also submitted it for peer review, and would welcome any feedback from a fresh pair of eyes. CorporateM (Talk) 22:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I recommend looking at the source citations in the leading textbook and just go with those. Rklawton (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've finished a "first draft" of sorts and nominated it for a GA review. I'm excited because it's the first article I've done on a major, major topic, rather than a company article. One I actually went to a library for to dig up books written by the leading historian in the field. BTW - I made some edits to QuiBids.com. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Hi Rklawton. I've edited this particular article on several occasions, and keep it on my watchlist. I noticed that you recently deleted a lengthy contribution to the Talk page of this article, made by another user. A quick glance at that users statement convinces me that he/she is informed about the subject matter, although promoting a perspective different from that taken in the article. That, I believe, is one of the reasons we have a Talk page. You did not list your reason for this deletion. While one is permitted to edit/delete submissions to their own Talk page, I was not aware that it was appropriate to edit/delete third party comments on an article Talk page, except to correct certain extreme violations of Wikipedia policy. While a lengthy posting might require archiving, what are the guidlines for unilateral deletion of another users statements on an article Talk page? This smacks of censorship. Your response would be illuminating. Gulbenk (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd meant to leave an edit summary, but pushed the wrong button instead. Our guidelines are that we can not copy/paste the entire contents of copyrighted articles into Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Just didn't think of a cut and paste. Sure enough, source was The American Mercury. Gulbenk (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a heads up. I posted a comment on the Leo Frank Talk page which concerns the magazine article "100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty", appearing in the 2013 version of the American Mercury, and your comments about the need for a realiable source. Thought you might want to add additional comments to the discussion. Gulbenk (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory

I have determined through some research that the concept of a "Pixar Universe" preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, so I created User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe as means of dealing with it. Upon further reflection, perhaps best that I fold my little sourced article into the main topic Pixar so we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Since Pixar denies it and there's not much for sources, I'd skip it altogether. Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

CREWE

Your notice says you are a member of CREWE and will help with concerns about other members of CREWE. User Inanygivenhole has a CREWE-like notice on her/his page, but it claims to be a paid editor. There is indication of who pays, or why, or who Inanygivenhole works for. (This user came to my attention by speedily deleting an article I had created.) When I went to this user's page, I noticed that it was quite new. After looking around, I have some concerns about this user's username, editing behavior, and civility. Cheers. --Vampyrecat (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The user's edit history is consistent with that of an experienced editor who has been previously banned. I do not know which one. If you wish to pursue this matter, you have my full support. Rklawton (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if any concerns about my behavior were brought up with me, instead of behind my back. The CREWE template is a joke, because I find it absurd that paid editors be allowed at all. Inanygivenhole (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of life

I am not sure how to respond to a personal post criticizing an edit on the Meaning of Life page. When editing a site, there is no room for explanation. The Wikipedia editor seemed personally offended and biased. My complaint (in more than two sentences) was that what was written was not distinct of Mormonism. It was like writing, “We believe God loves people.” The writing should embody what is unique to Mormonism. Mormons have distinct beliefs and have every right to express them. The person who wrote the section did not express them. The writer revealed neither the epistemological implicates of Mormonism, nor the cosmological dynamics. Second, it should be categorized appropriately, which it was not. I now understand the criticisms of Wikipedia and why it is not considered a valid avenue of research.

  Nineveh Road (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

We use talk pages to discuss controversial edits - and we ask that biased editors avoid editing articles directly. We also ask that edits be supported by reliable, verifiable sources. You simply removed content from an article due to your own personal bias. And yes, people who do that end up not liking Wikipedia very much. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Biblical passage

Hi Rklawton, as per WP:BRD I invite you to self-revert this edit and discuss it on the talk page please. Biblical passages are not only primary sources (as you correctly point out), they are also quite ambiguous and tend to be open to some very different interpretations. Thanks. Gaba ^(talk) 22:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an illustration that supports sourced content. It shouldn't be a big deal. Rklawton (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hightail (formerly YouSendIt)

Hi Rklawton. You were just top-of-mind because I saw your comment in the Idea Lab. I feel like I've tapped-out a lot of editors that enjoy working with me in my COI role, but can only take-on 1-2 projects at a time.

I've already brought this article up to the GA-rank, but they've had some news as of late that hasn't been incorporated yet and I've proposed a small update here. I was wondering if you would have the time and interest to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Kermits

I responded about the Kermit name issue on the talk page. Thank you so much for alerting me to the discussion--I hope I actually provided a useful response. jengod (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold editing of categorisation

I was interested to see your edit to User talk:217.158.67.94, and I wondered why you made it. Is there some reason why categories are exempt from the bold, revert, discuss idea? I also wonder why you suggest to someone who as far as you know may be completely new to editing Wikipedia (unless you have information that I don't know about) that they nominate it for deletion, but don't give them any indication at all as to how to do that. I would have thought that at the very least you might have given a link to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

They were bold. I reverted and invited them to discuss. So, no, I'm not seeing an exemption. I could have given them the link if I'd had it. I didn't. Rklawton (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted and invited them to discuss. However, you did more than that: you said "Don't simply remove it from all the associated articles without discussion". It seems to me that the natural way of reading that was "you shouldn't have removed it without discussion", not "it was fine to remove it without discussion, but now that I have expressed disagreement, don't remove it again without discussion". If what I read it as saying was not, in fact, what you meant, then you made an unfortunate choice of words, which may well have given a misleading impression of your intention, in which case it may be well to think carefully about how you phrase similar messages in future. I also find your response to my comment about giving information about how to nominate for deletion most unsatisfactory. If you were sincerely trying to help the editor know how to deal with the issue, then it seems to me bewildering that you phrased your message in a way that failed to give any information about how to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not obligated to train users. I do it when I can, but when I don't have the information myself, and I'm particularly busy, then it isn't going to happen. When an editor blanks and article, we don't pat them on the head and use the "bold, revert, discuss" approach. We call it what it is: vandalism, and we template them. In this case, an editor blanked a category rather than an article, but I see no difference - it's still vandalism. Rklawton (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I initially came here assuming that your edit was made in good faith, and meant what it appeared to, namely that you were advising the editor how to deal with a category that he or she sincerely believed was unhelpful, and that you had merely not thought enough about what would be helpful. I thought that, by calling attention to the fact, I could help you to avoid making a similar mistake again. However, it is now clear from what you say that it was not so at all, and that you were just dismissing the editor's efforts without any intention of helping him/her, because you regarded the edits as "vandalism". The edits were not vandalism, and I find it difficult to imagine what evidence you believe you saw that they were made in good faith. Also, the edits did not remotely resemble blanking an article: they merely removed one small piece of content from articles, which the editor explained he/she thought was pointless. That is a perfectly defensible opinion, and the fact that you disagree does not make it vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that they removed that category from every single article containing that category? Rklawton (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was all but two of the articles, rather than every single one, but that is a minor point. However, I really don't see the point you are trying to make by mentioning that. If an editor thinks that a category is inappropriate, and thinks that the way to deal with that is to remove it from articles, isn't it natural that they should do it to all of the relevant articles? You give the impression that you think there is something sinister about doing so, but I can't see why. Anyway, it seems that there is a significant amount of support for the view that for some reason you regard as vandalism: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_20#Category:Baseball_foods. I have no doubt that you saw this as vandalism, and acted in good faith, but perhaps you should think more carefully before categorising as vandalism something which could very well be good-faith editing, no matter how strongly you think it is mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Blanking an article is vandalism. Blanking a category is, too. Rklawton (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nothing is vandalism if it is done in good faith, i.e. if it is not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Either you don't know that that is Wikipedia's policy on vandalism, in which case you should check that policy before the next time you characterise an editor's actions as vandalism, to avoid making a similar mistake again, or else you do know that it is the policy, in which case you have no right to deliberately ignore policy and impose your own preferred view, no matter how strongly you disagree with that policy. Either way, it horrifies me to see an administrator being so completely out of line with policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I don't read minds and since it looked like vandalism to me, I responded accordingly. Rklawton (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

cornet

okie dokie artichokie felt_friend 00:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nak

I moved female yak to the disambiguation page

Oh, thanks. I thought I was on the Disambiguation page. My bad. Rklawton (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

SeriousFun Children's Network

Please look through the edit history of SeriousFun Children's Network and Hole in the Wall Camps to find a non-copyright-infringing version. There should be a version of 19:21, 15 June 2008 by me which was split off of Hole in the Wall Gang Camp (see [3]) and hopefully some much better non-copyvio versions.

If you find one, please put it at SeriousFun Children's Network and leave a redirect at Hole in the Wall Camps, and restore any relevant talk pages as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is a discussion at ANI where you have been named regarding the behavior of Thewolfchild (talk · contribs). The discussion can be found here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Rklawton (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Appreciate the warm welcome :-) - 110.20.147.72 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rklawton. You have new messages at Tayawi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm not sure it this is the right forum to bring this up - but I notice that this article has no family history or personal information other than a brief mention of his parents. As a grand child of General Price it would be interesting to also note that he was married, had two children and a number of grand children. His son, Colonel Charles Price - served in World War II in the Army working for General Chenault and the Flying Tigers. His (the General) wife (Dolly) was the first woman to fire a machine gun I believe.

67.49.81.125 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Brian Price

This isn't a forum, it's my talk page, but sure, there's no problem bringing your recommendations here - other than that very few people will see them. To address your recommendations. In order to implement them, we'd need a reliable, published source. Yes, I realize you are his grand-child. However, it would be exceptionally difficult for us to verify that you are who you say you are. As a result, our policy is not to reply on personal testimony all but to use only that which is published. Perhaps you can point me to a few links, books, articles, etc. containing this information? If so, I'd be happy to show you how to add this to the article and source it properly. If you'd rather, I could also add it myself instead. Either way - so long as we have sources to cite. Rklawton (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bookspam

Hey Rklawton, sorry if I sound like a dick there--didn't mean to. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything dickish there, but thanks for your concern. The discussion appears productive. Rklawton (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. Listen, if you can, please provide some evidence for the claims you made about McFarland--not just in the context of an RS discussion or the article for the company (which I haven't looked at yet), but also because I have a professional interest in the subject. Have they made the news, been written up in the Chronicle or some publication like that? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Their website says they are an "independent publisher". Here they are in the news (or not really in the news, as the case may be). Here's their Facebook page. Click on their link to "recent posts by others" and you'll see a long list of novice authors thanking McFarland for helping them get published. I'm not saying McFarland only publishes crap, but I'm sure not seeing any indication that they stand behind the contents of what they publish, and that's what's critical for us when we consider using their books as sources for our articles. Rklawton (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

McFarland does not publish "crap" and I'd like to see you back up that opinion. I'm going to repost here what I already said at ANI which you didn't respond to: There is a gulf of difference between an academic, specialty press and a vanity press! Coming out with statements such as "They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published" is plain wrong. You question the "reliability" of their works; try the Reference and User Services Association of the American Library Association. Their 2012 awards for Outstanding Reference Sources includes McFarland's The Polish American Encyclopedia[4]; in 2011 Off Broadway Musicals, 1910 – 2007: Casts, Credits, Songs, Critical Reception and Performance Data of More Than 1,800 Shows[5]; 2010 Broadway Plays and Musicals: Descriptions and Essential Facts[6]. Also in 2010, McFarland were picked for RUSA's Best Historical materials with The New Woman in Print and Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography[7]. In 2006 McFarland's The Titanic in Print and on Screen: An Annotated Guide to Books, Films, Television Shows, and Other Media was picked by RUSA for Best Bibliographies in History[8]. Sure, they publish niche works, but you are way off mark with this unwarranted criticism of McFarland's practices and credentials. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Great - so now we have evidence that those particular sources are reliable as they have been accepted by experts in the field. But we have no such assurances that all McFarland's publications are so accepted. Rklawton (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we have clear evidence that McFarland is not a vanity press and is a long- and well-established independent publisher of award-winning academic works. End of. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

... but no evidence that all their published works are reliable. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Your stated position at the outset of this incident was that The American International Pictures Video Guide was "self-published"[9] and citing it constituted "book spam"[10]. You confused "independent publisher" and "vanity press"[11], started a thread at ANI about an editor using a McFarland book and started an AfD for the McFarland article - all within 12 minutes... You even suggested the possibility that "the account's editing privileges should be revoked."[12] You really don't like to admit that you were wrong, do you? Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If I was sure I was right, I wouldn't have posted in ANI. However based on some of the author/publisher communications I've read, I'm not at all convinced that McFarland cares all that much about reliability. That is to say, McFarland caters to novice authors who can't get published elsewhere. That's not exactly the recipe for blanket reliability. And please leave the personal insults off my talk page. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• After some informal communications with colleagues and reviewers about their policies and editorial practices, I no longer doubt McFarland's standing as an academic publisher. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Denise Nickerson

I know you'll say that, although I've seen websites say that Denise Nickerson was born in 1959, you'll explain that I must have gotten her year of birth from a wrongly sourced site, where she was actually born two years earlier.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Bad sources are a common problem. Got any suggestions for finding a reliable source? Rklawton (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

Thanks for your note.
I disagree with your analysis and bare assertion. It ain't spam, and you are over reacting. We should be able to communicate openly, without censors on talk pages. Happy editing.. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Talk. Talk pages are not for random chatter. Rklawton (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

At least you purport to have a rationale. Of course, if you had looked at Marquette, Michigan talk page (and I assume you did) there was lots of other stuff that fell under your rubric. I suppose that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", but the reasons for the differentiation and your dire warnings beg an answer. I'm done with you now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In the future, please consider toning down your rhetoric and exercising some discretion. WP:Civil. There is no reason to throw down a gauntlet over a small turd in the road. You are using shotguns to kill fleas. WP:Don't feed the trolls and Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose are examples. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you admitting to being a troll and leaving turds in the road then? See also wp:spam and wp:OTHER. You should know better, so behave or be gone. Rklawton (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User:SFCPappy

Did you see that the image was loaded a second time? The first was speedy deleted from Commons. But the second looks exactly like the first. (I don't know enough about copyright or image deletion to really do anything,) So besides leaving the message, can you look at the commons image and do something. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on commons, so there's not much I can do other than tag it. Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

McDonald's

Slow down friend. This is a well-read article and you may want to get some consensus on the talk page before you tear the article apart. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the talk page. I started a thread there. No one objected. And, if you look at the images, you'll see that those that were removed provided little value. Your knee jerk revert is highly inappropriate. If you wish to take exception to an edit, it should be based on the merits of the edit alone and its effect on the article. In this case, the effect was positive - it removed pointless images from an article overloaded with images. Your restoration of these images made the article noticeably worse. Rklawton (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I must have missed your talk page discussion while I was preparing for Christmas 2013! What criteria did you use when deciding which pictures to cut? It seems obvious you kept all the pictures of the McDonald's in the United States, and removed all but one from another country. Are you aware that the picture of the McArabia burger--which you deleted--was the second most popular picture on the page, with 1097 views? Yet you kept the picture of the drive-thru sign in New York--the least popular picture on the page--with 344 views. Wikipedia should embraced a global perspective, and McDonald's is a global company. Yet your edits have a painfully US bias. You also removed one of the two politically relevant pictures, of a world leader eating at a McDonald's. Please see this discussion I did before moving some photos from the Lake Ontario article: Talk:Lake Ontario#Remove and replace some photos. Then, THREE DAYS LATER, I did the edits. There's no shame in reverting your poorly-planned edits and doing it right, because loading the page with US photos--I can assure you--will not go away. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

COI help

Hi Rklawton. I was wondering if you had a few minutes to take a look at my correction requests here on a BLP article. The issue seems to be mostly around a source written by Bob Geary, who Google says is an Opinion Columnist for the publication. However, the article is in the "Elections" rather than "Columns" section of the publication. Perdue's biography guy says some of their facts are wrong. CorporateM (Talk) 07:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chinese Water Dragon at the St. Louis Zoo (12-27-2005).jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Copperhead at the St. Louis Zoo (12 27 2005).jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard

Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I hope by "may be" - you mean "appears to be". I think this is a good idea. You can add McDonalds and Caterpillar to the list. I don't know if they are "currently" under attack, but they attacks have been recurring over a long period of time. Rklawton (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiknic 2014

You are invited to join us at our Wiknic on Sun, July 6, 2014: St. Louis Wiknic. Hope to see you there! Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful invitation. However, I no longer live in the St. Louis area. Rklawton (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

Sock? [13] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Prolly. Rklawton (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Eichmann

"Nazi" is not a nationality. German is. It can be clearly inferred that he was German based on his place of birth. Also, please take a look at the discussion which has already gone over this. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Dykstra talk page

As odd a thing as it would be, I think we might consider semi protecting the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I'd rather not. We've got probably one person behaving badly who we could probably block (by an uninvolved administrator), but I really don't want to cut off the possibility of an inexperienced editor making a useful request or highlighting a heretofore unknown source. Also, a talk page block would play into the hands of conspiracy theorists. The reality is, I never heard of this guy, have no interest in Canadian politics, and believe it's a fair assumption that a woman in an adult club an adult. However, it looks like his own team has handled this issue incompetently, and that reflects on him personally. Whenever I hear a politician cry, "unsubstantiated!", I'm more than happy to watch him or her get hoisted on his own petard. Rklawton (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I just don't like people screwing with talk pages. I appreciate the reasoned opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you. Can you imagine the hay an investigative journalist could make out of that misbehavior? Gees. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kermit Roosevelt Jr and Kermit Roosevelt III

You've twice reverted edits I have made to the Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. article. That article has multiple links to the Kermit Roosevelt III article.

The individual in the Kermit Roosevelt III article is Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.'s grandson, not his son as the article currently claims. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kermit_Roosevelt_III#Shouldn.27t_he_be_IV.3F.

I think my edits were correct and don't understand why you are reverting them.

I agree. I thought I undid my changes once I realized my mistake this last time. Rklawton (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Harassment?

Does this really count as harassment? Of whom particularly? It seems a basic statement of human biology, albeit juvenile, and possibly against the spirit of Wikipedia:User pages, but hardly a blockable offence, let alone indefinite. Or am I missing something? Optimist on the run (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I also cannot find any edits which could conceivably be classed as harassment, nor can I find the ten edits from this editor which you say you have reverted. Either I am being stupid, Felt friend is very good at concealing his tracks, or your block is in error. I would be grateful, and would not be insulted, if you could tell me which is the case? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He reverted Felt's user page back to 10 edits ago. Ssscienccce (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that really counts as harassment. That sort of statement is extremely offensive to all male to female transexuals - people born with a genetically male body but live as a female (with or without hormone therapy or surgery) and their allies. User pages are not for soapboxing let along promulgating intolerance against a minority community. We're all working together to build an encyclopedia, and such statements are no more welcome or helpful than any other form of bigoted soapboxing. Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no evidence that it was in any way deliberately offensive to transexuals, though I admit my knowledge in this area is extremely limited. Perhaps he hadn't considered them, as I admit I hadn't. I still feel this does not warrant an indefinite block without warning. I'll raise the matter at ANI. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Had this been posted on another user's page, particularly if it were a user who was known to be trans-gender, then it could easily be seen as offensive harassment; but it was posted on the user's own page, without context, elaboration or follow-up. It seems to me that the chance of any trans-gender editors seeing the post was microscopically small. Incidentally, it might be worth pointing out that a complete surgical migration from male to female includes the construction of a vagina. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Paris Attacks

I advise you to re-read the source... The StormCatcher (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Since my reading skills appear to you to be lacking, would you please paste the relevant quote below? Rklawton (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what I'm reading: " French authorities have launched a terrorism investigation, Eric Pelletier, a reporter with Le Pariesien, tells CNN Paul Cruickshank. There has been no official claim of responsibility, though ISIS has applauded the attacks on Twitter, Cruickshank reports." - and that's not an admission of responsibility. I applauded whoever won the last world cup. I didn't win the last world cup. Rklawton (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

WHAT A SUPRISE! They turned out to be Islamist attackers. Bureaucratic moron.--Loomspicker (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Surprise* and you really don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is about. It's not about correctly predicting the future. It's about writing encyclopedia articles based on current, reliable sources. We didn't have those sources last night. We have them now. That's how we do things. That's why the media comes here to help them write their articles. That's why we're the world's #1 encyclopedia. Once you figure that out, you'll do much better here. On the other hand, if you wish to be contentious in your edits, you will be blocked from future editing. Fact. Rklawton (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

University Seals

I understand your concerns and, while I disagree with you, I will agree with the community given their response. I understand where you're coming from, it may look a bit cumbersome in the infobox to you. Also, you do not need to mass revert my edits, I will change them all once/if the community comes to a conclusion. I have multiple edits of text and higher quality vector graphic Seals and logos in each edit, so I can go back personally and do it if the community decides the Seal link is overlinking.Threemonths (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Lucien Greaves

Thanks however Lucien is quite a notable person and not just "my agenda". If you don't know who he is, check out a few of these links. There's far less notable people on Wiki. I'm a novice at Wiki however this is quite a notable person. I've placed similar in "request for article". Again, i don't know wiki pedia and thought publishing an article in that manner was the correct way to collaborate. Do not make unnecessary petty threats to delete my account based on trying to improve the site.

• Lucien Greaves (Doug Mesner) - Co-founder of The Satanic Temple, current Spokesman of the Satanic Temple, high priest in the Church of Satan.

General Lucien Greaves Google Search (A wealth of articles) Unmasking Lucien Greaves, Leader of the Satanic Temple Satanist takes Megyn Kelly to law school Politics, the Dark Lord, and Hobby Lobby: An interview with the Satanic Temple Lucien Greaves Archive http://www.dougmesner.com/ The Satanic Temple Performs Ceremony at Westboro Baptist Church Family Grave-site Huffington Post - Lucien Greaves Washington Times - Topic - Lucien Greaves INTERVIEW: Satanic Temple’s Lucien Greaves Isn’t Worried About Arrest & Feels “Pretty Good” About Showing Off His Genitalia Doug Mesner/Lucien Greaves: the huckster behind the Harvard Black Mass and similar shams IS THE SATANIST BEHIND 10 COMMANDMENTS CHALLENGE SINCERE? No, The Satanic Temple is not in the personal security business Devil’s Advocate Satanic Temple Approved For Capitol Holiday Display Religious Pluralism and the Baphomet Monument LUCIEN GREAVES WORKSHOP TIME CHANGE TO 5PM! Detroit goes to the devil Oklahoma Removes Ten Commandments on Capitol Grounds, Which Sadly Also Means No Satanic Statue Megyn Kelly Talks To Smart-Ass, One-Eyed Satanist "Lucien" Greaves The Satanic Temple and the First Amendment lecture by Lucien Greaves Lucien Greaves – Atheistic Religion & the Satanic Reformation (2015 National Convention) The Intellectual Saviors: Interview w/ Lucien Greaves of The Satanic Temple The Satanic Temple and the First Amendment Mancow interviews The Satanic Temple (full interview)

Barfbag666 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the pseudonym Lucien Greaves. That's not relevant to the two edits of yours I reverted. If you intend to edit articles on Wikipedia, you would do well to follow our rules. Rklawton (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How did i get a "personal attack" from saying what i did above again? You did some kind of "expedited delete" of my somewhat placeholder article on Lucien then arbitrarily and in a circular reasoning manner deleted two of my contributions. my note on Fred Phelps was rather noteworthy and applicable to his biography. he protested many solders funerals and promoted gay hate. As Fred was on his Death Bed a protest some of us know as a "Pink Mass" similar to what he did for years; live by the sword die by the sword. However, you just said it wasn't applicable. I disagree. It was rather news worthy all over the country and similar to other material above. I'm going to put similar back in however i'd appreciate advise how to format it properly rather than rejection of my contribution what was backed with credible sources.

Is posting this on someone's talk page a personal attack? I really don't know. This is the first time I've been rejected additions to posts in this manner. Barfbag666 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not delete your article. However, as I noted on your request for undeletion, the article is not ready for publication. Please follow the advice I left you on your talk page. As for the other edits, the were not appropriate for the articles in which you placed them and have been removed. Rklawton (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

photo violation/advise please

Hello Wikipedia,

Regarding the photograph of Kermit Roosevelt III, Page address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt_III

WHen one double clicks on the photo, it says that the copyright is held by Kermit Roosevelt III. That is false. The photograph is mine and I hold the copyright. No one obtained permissions from me. It also says that you have correspondence from KR III confirming that he is the copyright holder and is agreeing to license publication of the image to third parties. I would like to see the correspondence from your permission archives to confirm whose name is indeed on the correspondence. Please tell me who usurped the copyright on ticket # 2008091810045165 so that I can deal with the matter. Many thanks.

I have contacted Kermit Roosevelt about the issue and he has removed the photo from the site this evening, 12/30/15. I tried loading a screen shot of the site with the photo and the above information, but was not permitted, if you can tell me how to, it will be sent.

The photograph of KR III is my work, originally published in the Penn CUrrent: http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/2005-09-08/interviews/next-big-thing The photo credit was accidentally omitted that week, but you can see my work here and all through the Penn Current publication for many years: https://www.google.com/search?q=candace+dicarlo%2Fpenn+current&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I can provide you with the hi res file from my archives, along with other photos from the session. My copyright information is also embedded in the metadata of the file.

Candace diCarlo photographer --108.16.151.68 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

H Candace, I suggest following the instructions on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kermit_Roosevelt_III&oldid=697470510#/media/File:Kermit_Roosevelt.jpg Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Rklawton!

Happy New Year!

Rklawton,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

"Poop head"? Somehow I doubt you are serious about making positive contributions to an encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein

This is from the section of the Jeffrey Epstein article marked "Solicitation of prostitution":

"In June 2008, after pleading to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14, Epstein began serving an 18-month sentence. He served 13 months, and upon release became a registered sex offender."

This section includes a reference to this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/13/jeffrey-epstein-donations-us-virgin-islands-review

The statutes of the US Virgin Islands where Epstein committed the sex offence he was convicted of classifies him as a Tier 1 sex offender guilty of "Unlawful sexual contact in the second degree" under Title 14 Chapter 85 of the Virgin Islands Penal Code, entitled "Rape and Related Offenses".

http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=7835#statute-top

Upon his release and return to New York, according to this article:

http://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im-a-sex-offender-not-a-predator/

A New York judge ruled him to be a Level 3 sex offender ("high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists"). This is the highest classification of sex offender in NY state.

Does the reference to him as a "child rapist" require more referencing in your view (since he was convicted of having sex with a child, which under the jurisdiction is considered "rape or a related offence"), or would you prefer the first sentence to read "Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and convicted sex offender, who was convicted of soliciting a 14 year old for prostitution and is considered at high risk of reoffending"? I'm happy with either and I'd be glad to include the articles included above as references. :)

92.234.43.2 (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So, was it "rape" or was it a "related offence"? The point is, the words you used don't match the crime, and there has already been a lot of discussion on the talk page about how and where to include his conviction in his article. Coming along and adding highly inflammatory words that aren't backed up by the facts to the very first sentence in the article without discussion is asking for a permanent block. Rklawton (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was statutory rape. I don't see how the statutes in question could be understood otherwise. To clarify, if the victim had been over 16 but under 18 it would have explicitly qualified as rape; or if Epstein had been over 16 but under 18 it would have explicitly qualified as rape. I believe the term "sexual contact" as it appears in the statute is meant to broaden the definition to include sex acts other than intercourse under the same legal standard, rather than to absolve men in their forties of rape when they have sex with a fourteen year old. The actual term "statutory rape" would not appear in the statutes, since it's a signifier rather than a technical term (and since the statutes themselves are what the word "statutory" refers to). The DoJ publishes guidelines explicitly on this point, observing that laws governing statutory rape use terms such as rape, sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact to refer to the crime in question.

I would also question how "inflammatory" it is to call him a convicted child rapist, as by the standard legal understanding of statutory rape that is exactly what he is.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape

Nonetheless, I can understand why you'd object to using the word "rapist" given that context. I would be happy instead for it to read "convicted sex offender" if you think that would be more appropriate. I find it a bit odd that that information would be so far down the bio, given that being a notorious convicted sex offender is what he is famous for. I didn't mean to wade in and cause a stir without prior discussion, I didn't think it was a particularly controversial addition. More fool me. 92.234.43.2 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you join (or start anew) the conversation on the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC

User talk:Jsp722

I think you now get my reasoning for the block. It was much more nuanced than the mere demand for a block itself and then the ignoring the First Law of Holes led to where we are now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I gave him two solid pieces of advice, and he wasn't able to follow either one. Sadly, his general point about the occasional misuse of the term "pagan" was spot on. Rklawton (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There was little support for an actual topic ban but an inability or refusal to communicate clearly and concisely is also a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

On accusations of stolen valor Eric Greitens

Hello, you reverted one of my edits on the wiki of Eric Greitens claiming it was not constructive. As a combat veteran the matter I posted about is very serious.I posted as objectively as possible, trying to post BOTH sides statements. The accusations and rebuttals were sourced from multiple places. People like me take this very seriously yet I posted as objectively and distanced as possible because either he's an American hero getting attacked and I don't approve, or he is a a liar and I don't approve.

I posted the most up to date information on this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page, that's where it belongs. And sign your posts. Rklawton (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about. I just talked to you about it.

MOpoliticaljunkie (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you did not read my reply. Rklawton (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bikini

Hi there.

With regard to this edit - it's not a "load of crap. Not sourced. Triangles? Seriously?" It is sourced with this: [14] which supports the use of the term triangles, which then means that your last question can also be answered with "Yes - seriously."

I haven't reverted because although I think you're wrong, I also think that more sources would be a better argument. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Triangles describe Reard's design. However, the section was labeled "Construction" without any qualifications, and it was clear that the section's authors were making things up as they wrote. Rklawton (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Contested PROD

Hi, I removed your PROD on Buckner Fanning. You are right, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the articles does have some text that needs to be improved. However, the subject is notable, and the fixes seem minor and may not warrant deletion. Feel free to nominate at AfD, but I don't think a PROD would be right here. WP:BEFORE and all that. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Obituaries are not considered reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Improper notice

You left a notice at User talk:2601:405:4300:DB28:554:BB50:A360:1650, citing removal of content without an edit summary, yet that user did in fact leave an edit summary directing to the article talk page, where they left a comment explaining their edit. Ironically, their edit was a revert of your unexplained edit. You also went on to revert their edit, and without leaving an edit summary again. Surely you see the contradiction here? I take it your intention is to engage this new user on the article's talk page? In the meantime, I have removed your notice and replaced it with a 'welcome' template. - ^theWOLFchild 13:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That must have been an oversight. On the other hand, it's obvious. The user was blanking sourced information. I'd left a notice on their other IP's talk page, but I failed to consider that if they are switching IP's, they wouldn't get the old message. Rklawton (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Switching from IPv4 to IPv6? On the off chance that these are indeed two different users sharing the same opinion, it would be better to greet them than accuse them. Unlike the first user, the second one did explain his revert of your edit on the talk page, giving you the chance to discuss it with them. Perhaps if you took that opportunity, it would prevent further disputes over that particular content. Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely missed the "see talk" summary. If I had, I wouldn't have made the mistake I did. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've reverted back to the IP's version. Rklawton (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL! You reverted yourself on the talk page, not the article page. Lemme guess... you're doing several things at once? (it happens to me when I try to edit and make dinner at the same time) - ^theWOLFchild 21:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Gees. Yeah, I spent the day writing software. Took a break, and now I'm back again. Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

InternetSpartan's block

I noticed you warned and blocked InternetSpartan (talk · contribs · logs · block log) earlier this month for disruptive editing on Anne Frank. Well, he's back at it: see here and here. It doesn't appear he's interacted at all on the talk page: exactly the same disruptive nonsense that seems to comprise most of his editing history. —  Rebbing  talk  04:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

II explicitly stated my reasons, numerous times. You can't say it's inappropriate just based on your WP:POV.InternetSpartan (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)InternetSpartan

The place for this discussion is on the article's talk page. Wikipedia's articles are based on reliable sources and not your personal opinions or interpretations. We work collaboratively here. Take some time to read up on how we do things because right now your wasting your own time. Rklawton (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Erwin Rommel. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.22.107 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as the moderator, I have opened the case and your input would be greatly appreciated. In veritas (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rklawton (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

So you don't want to continue with the moderated discussion now that it has started? In veritas (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do *you* see a discussion started? I don't. All I saw was an IP making demands. Rklawton (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am a moderator, whose job is to help people work out issues, and it seems like there is a content issue, and I want to help resolve it. Participation in DRN is highly recommended, but not required so if you do not want to help work out a successful conclusion I can close the case. In veritas (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but there's nothing in the request to respond to. There's an IP unwilling to read let alone address comments/summaries, and that's just not much of a basis for discussion. Jumping on my talk page and making demands wasn't helpful on his part, either. Rklawton (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP (now Camino 2-1-2) has done a first moderated round statement. Please respond, Camino 2-1-2 is extending an olive branch, and it would be nice of you to give an answer. If you no longer want to be involved, inform me and I will close the case. Sincerely, In veritas (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been 3 days since Camino 2-1-2 has responded, please respond. Regards In veritas (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it has been 2 days since Camino 2-1-2 has responded, and as I have mentioned before the DRN board likes to keep responses every two days, so please check in at least once a day. Sincerely, In veritas (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, another volunteer has added a comment about the case. You should check it out, and if not I will close the case. In veritas (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I closed the DRN case, if you have any questions you may leave a comment on my talk page. --In veritas (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Disputes with uncompromising, inexperienced IPs can be taxing. Rklawton (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Baden-Powell's Unilens

Article not a copyvio according to US law..

• Works Registered or First Published in the U.S., Published Before 1923 (in all cases): In the public domain due to copyright expiration.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain6

in any case I've rebuild it from scratch (translated from es.wiki)can you remove the two warnings (if OK)?--Mcapdevila (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Rklawton (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Tomas Gorny

I noticed you nominated Tomas Gorny for deletion back in January. [15] The dude just had a ton of press coverage this summer. Here's the link to Google News [16] it has 233 hits. Here's a story on Business insider [17], Hpost [18], and some vietnamese newspaper [19]. The press seem to really love his American Dream story. What do you think about this? IMO, this makes him notable (for real this time). I'm willing to write an article about him. Are you OK with this? I don't want to tread on your toes as you're the guy who deleted the page. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like his PR people have earned their pay. There's not much we can do about it. With all those national articles, I'd say he now satisfies notability. Rklawton (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Rklawton. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

G. Wilder page

Dear Rklawton,

We received your message. Perhaps we haven't properly learned the edit procedures, but we do believe your removals were mistaken.

As regards the first edit this was a reference from Mr. Wilder's memoir that he wished on his page and was put on his page some time ago. It was mysteriously removed. It was his wish that it be put back and the request was made of us directly.

As for the second edit, this is new information, citing recent activity and participation and of biographical significance. Perhaps we should wait for further interviews and public knowledge of the event (additional citations) before placing it on the page.

The last edit, of release of his new novel, is again something he and the publishers wished on the page given its announcement. Perhaps this is best left to the publicists to put on the page.

Thank you for your efforts. We hope we used this talk page correctly.

DKOAA

What Mr. Wilder wished really isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article. We can only use information that is cited. If the information isn't public, this isn't the place to make it so. No doubt his novel will make its way to his page. I highly recommend against his publicists adding the information as that would represent a conflict of interest on their part. Rklawton (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Rklawton.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rklawton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

I noticed that a message you recently left to GitanoBlancoPDX may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't think of the right template. Rklawton (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's cool. – S. Rich (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

re: All Ireland hurling final. Well sorry, but infairness being an Irish person who knows what gaa is and what happens in croke park, all that needed editing in that image was the sub writing underneath, which could have included "... seen here during a u2 performance in 2009". I've been registered on this site for 3 years now making edits to gaa pages and have been respectful at that, however for a use of a modern Irish phrase (look it up, we say it for a lot of players in our games), I felt very disrespected by some phrases used regarding my revert of your edit, but we're all men, so we'll leave it at that.

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rklawton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike 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

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert of Roger Nelson (skydiver)

Regarding your reversion of my change, your commit message reads: "Ah, no. Roger died in 2003." but you have changed the year of death to 1979. I'm slightly confused, but I have assumed an honest mistake and reverted it back again. AJ2265 (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is about Carl, not Roger. Carl died in 1979. Roger died in 2003. Rklawton (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

in response to your rent message on my talk page

Hi, this is dogemuchilluminati, and i hope you excuse my incorrect edit, which was made in response to viewing the section on Chris Kyle's weaponry, as it listed an m9 service pistol as a "m9 barretta, "which is an incorrect spelling for beretta, seeing as someone else had already incorrectly added the m9 to the list. To clarify, i am saying that i had simply corrected a spelling error on an entry on the list of weaponry Chris Kyle had used during his years in service, and that i did not know that whoever had added an m9 beretta incorrectly to the list was actually wrong. after reading from Chris Kyle's posthumously published book, "American Gun" (a very fine read by the way,) which i had not heard of until after i had made the edit, and which details that ( which Kyle wrote himself) Chris usually carried a customized tacticool m1911 variant, chambered in .45 ACP, and not in 9mm parabellum, which is what the standard m9 service pistol is chambered in, and also which kyle also said he detested to save his ass outside the wire.

P.S. I am sorry in advance for all of the typoes this post has — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogemuchilluminati (talk • contribs) 02:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Beslan

I knew it was going to be reverted. I understand neutral policies etc. but 100% stand by my observations. I have read books on this tragedy and think the EHRC need to assess their own neutrality. Thanks for the good faith tag though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. If you find some good sources that support your reasoning, I have no objection to seeing them added to the article. Rklawton (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Okays. I'll look if you wish. Tim Phillips' book is a good start. If you haven't done so already, take the time to watch this documentary and cast aside sentiments. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rklawton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)