User talk:Mike1901/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- Sites with a
wikimedia.orgaddress were by mistake redirected to the Wikimedia Foundation wiki on 26 January. This included Meta and Wikimedia Commons. The mistake was fixed after an hour. [1] - Some users had problems logging in and out around 22 January. Bots also had problems and edit previews did not work properly. This was because of problems related to the new component SessionManager. It was undone on 23 January. [2][3]
- Because of new problems with SessionManager the latest version of MediaWiki was removed from the Wikimedia wikis again on 31 January. The new version this week will be without SessionManager. [4]
Changes this week
- The page history will get a help link. This will go to Help:Page history on Meta. Wikis can exchange it for a link to their local pages. [5]
- Notifications will only show part of a page name if it is very long. You will also have another way to mark notifications as read. [6][7]
- The Universal Language Selector input methods are now available with the visual editor. This means many who write in non-Latin scripts can now use the visual editor. [8]
- The visual editor will now give you more tools to edit tables. You can move rows and columns in a table and copy parts of tables to make new ones. You can also copy and paste more than one cell at the same time. [9][10][11]
- The visual editor has a new warning message when you leave a page you are editing without saving. Non-English wikis might need to translate it. [12][13]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 February. It will be on all wikis from 4 February (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 2 February at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is expiring watch list entries. The meeting will be on 3 February at 22:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The
rest.wikimedia.orgdomain will be shut down. This is planned to happen in March. You should use/api/rest_v1/at each individual project domain instead. [14]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
i think that you should be blocked
what you think you are hah ! why are you so jealous from that article ! i have just made the references but you erased everything ! how stupid you are ! Don't do it again i am adding some references again !
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Syntax highlighting support is now available for 53 more computer languages. [15]
- When you get a notification that an edit has been reverted, the notification now quotes part of the edit summary. [16]
- RESTBase is now using
scrub_wikitextinstead ofscrubWikitext. [17]
Changes this week
- Wikidata will have a new data type called "math". It will be used for formulas. [18][19]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 February. It will be on all wikis from 11 February (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 9 February at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is per-language URLs for pages of multilingual wikis. The meeting will be on 10 February at 22:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- Other sites will be able to tell when visitors come from links on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites. They used to be able to do this until we started using forced HTTPS in June 2015. This is planned to happen on 15 February. [20][21]
- Wikidata will have a new data type called "external-id". It will be used for references to external resources. It will be enabled on February 16. Some properties will be changed to the new data type. [22][23][24]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
All Bodhisattas last birth is unusual(in the Buddhahood page).
Bodhisattas last birth is unusual. They born while mother is sitting. Legs come first. Gods take the baby first. It is according to the Pali Canon.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can now edit pages on the mobile site version without JavaScript. [25]
- You can now use the Math extension to write chemistry formulas. [26]
Problems
- A few editors might have been logged in as someone else because of a bug. For security reasons everyone was logged out on 9 February. If you have seen this bug, you can report it. [27][28]
Changes this week
- There is a beta feature that adds links to the subject on other Wikimedia projects. The plan was to have it leave beta testing and be enabled for everyone in January. It will happen on 16 February instead. Wikis that don't want this can decide to have it disabled. [29][30]
- Cross-wiki notifications will be available as a beta feature on Wikidata, MediaWiki, Commons, and all Hebrew and French wikis on 19 February. [31]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 February. It will be on all wikis from 18 February (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 16 February at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The search function on Wikimedia wikis will get a completion suggester that tries to find the right pages as the user is typing. It will also recognize some typos. This will probably happen in March. It is currently in beta. [32]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Phabricator has been upgraded. [33][34]
Problems
- There was no new MediaWiki version last week. Changes that were planned to happen last week will happen this week instead. This is because of a bug that made saving pages take longer time. [35][36]
Changes this week
- After February 23, you can use Wikidata for inter-language links on Wikiversity. [37]
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 23 February at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is Assign RFCs to ArchCom shepherds. The meeting will be on 24 February at 22:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Random act of kindness. GABHello! 21:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |
helpme
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
My recent contribution was in fact true. Search Eastern Hancock Kalamazoo on Google and you will find that was a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.79.196 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- That may be, but a) it's unreferenced, b) there's no article about the Kalamazoo Killer (meaning no one would have any idea what you're talking about), and c) it's not relevant to an article about the school anyway. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- As per User:Primefac - all facts on Wikipedia should be backed up with references to a reliable source. Mike1901 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| I updated my post with notability. When will it be back up on Wiki? Thanks PtKirk1295 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
Doesn't make sense on I 69 (TN) article
Im sorry that you receive me a warning on the edit page, I tried to edit this page to make sense on that page but "Scheduled to be let in 2016" dont make sense and real clear to me. Can you edit this page for me? PS; Im a good editor not a vandal editor, It doesnt matter is constructive or not. (73.133.187.36 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC))
Otherkin Extreme Retardation
I made an edit to the Otherkin Page where I inserted the information that "Otherkin" suffer from a form of extreme mental retardation and you edited it out? Its very clear that they do indeed "suffer" from a mental behavioral difference to non otherkin, in that they perceive themselves to genuinely be animals, fictional beings / characters etc. and that this identification with non human beings can significantly retard the individuals ability to integrate themselves into normal society. this retardation can be extreme in many cases, therefore they "commonly suffer from extreme mental retardation" is a true statement, how is this "not constructive"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.222.72 (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
recent contibution
Mike1901 this is a contibution in puroresu history and this company existes you can go to List of professional wrestling promotions in Japan and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IChibannumerone (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism
Describing Section 13 as the "censorship section" is POV, is it not? The language I used is descriptive, instead of perjorative, and is neutral. I don't see what your issue with it is. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure when I made an edit
Hi, I just got a message from you saying "Hello, I'm Mike1901. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mark Levin, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Mike1901 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)" However, i have never made any edits to Wikipedia from this IP/computer. I think there might be some mistake. Although, I must say that it's impressive you sent a message to me when I haven't made any contributions here. :P
Thanks!
72.192.119.52 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey ! Mike - Need Help
Hey ! Mike i need your help with new Wikipedia article. May you please contatct me by email : contact@gerrygogna.com I will really appreciate it. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.139.79 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Gerry - would prefer to keep the discussion here if possible. What's the article you're looking to create? Will help where I can, though note Wikipedia is not an advertising platform to get your name out there and additions must be backed up by a reliable source, hence the reverts of your edits. Mike1901 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
New York Times article
Watch this and accept that the New York Post is referenced in the movie Top Secret! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9FauQOXN90 .
- Firstly, please sign your posts by using four tildes (~). Youtube is not generally a good reference - in order for information to be included in Wikipedia, it should be backed up by a reliable source. Mike1901 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Jerk, its the New York Post not the "New York Times" and by the way it is referenced in the movie "Top Secret!". As a wikipedia censor you have full control to deny actual reality and create your own b#115#1t reality.
Dangerous Woman
I saw you tagged the original page as a CSD. Can you help out getting this page back to where it should be? This vandal has done quite a bit of damage here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's been moved to Block me from wikipedia - think the first step is that we need to get the original page deleted so can do an uncontroversial move back, which is going to require administrator involvement. Mike1901 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- With a bit of luck, whoever deals with the AIV report will sort out this mess with the moves too, they've done some quite extensive damage as you say - don't see what they get out of it really! Mike1901 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Towergate Updates
Hi Mike, Thanks again for your help this afternoon. I have built out the history section on the Towergate page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Towergate_Insurance There is a lot more content and referenced the major points. Keen to look at the references in general with you now as you have time. Have a great bank holiday weekend, thanks again!
Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfalgate (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Jon, looking a lot better. Perhaps an Accolades section and beefing up the lead (first section before the contents list) and I'd probably say you're ready to resubmit. Don't worry about the references for now - I think you've got enough there (though do remember whoever reviews the submission may take a different view on this). Mike1901 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Shankill Butchers
Hello, I did an accurate edit to the above article and added a page number to the "Dillon" book. The other author needs to take more care about issuing stupid vandalism warnings. Further, that was the only "citation needed" in the article and the NPOV tag - added randomly - has been removed. 2.221.130.131 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks,
Hi, I'm not familiar with the article concerned - you'll need to take it up with the other editor directly on their talk page or - even better - the article's talk page. Mike1901 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Tyreal13
Mike, thank you ever so much> I did make an editing mistake doing what was supposed to be a minor edit and I don't know what I did that caused the error, so I deeply appreciate your stepping in and helping with that correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyreal13 (talk • contribs)
- No worries - happy to help. You did make a bit of a mess there, if you don't mind me saying! I'd suggest using the Show preview button to make sure your edits show as intended before making them live. Note you may need to redo some of your later edits, as there were errors across around 4 separate edits, so it was easier for me to undo all of them. Mike1901 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
You still acted in the spirit of the project Mike. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
Can you do us a favour?
- Please can you reopen the Wikicology ANI for a moment? I was going to register a vote and I would like it to be there for the record. It's on the ANI closure section. I will be watching. I already have it copied, just need to paste it. There was an e/c. Cheers Irondome (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Im on my phone so not easily on such a long page, but please take this as express permission to add your vote into the closed discussion - link to the diff of this message in the summary. Mike1901 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I suspect you're going to take some flak for being so WP:BOLD in non-admin-closing such a contentious discussion at ANI, so I just wanted to pre-emptively say thanks for doing it. I didn't have time to add my support to the "close and let arbcom handle it" vote but I think that's the right outcome, that you correctly judged the sense of the discussion, and that holding off to let the ANI discussion continue to flail around wouldn't have been very constructive. So, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, your close has been reverted by MPS1992 (talk · contribs), who believes there was a consensus for an indefinite block. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- And that such a contentious thread should be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Incidentally, why was this request made on this talk page? Is it acceptable under WP:CANVASS? MPS1992 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MPS1992: I closed the original discussion before this talk page thread started and thought the request to insert an addition for archive purposes only reasonable. Sadly, they then put it outside the close and I wasn't available on a computer to re-close again (editing ANI on mobile is near-on impossible) - this then confused another editor as Irondome fixed the re-close, but they were involved in the discussion. Mike1901 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you re-close Mike? The consensus is clear as glass for Arbcom involvement. You were spot on. Irondome (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case I would suggest that, not only should non-administrators not close contentious discussions where one proposal already has clear consensus, but also, they should especially not do so on WP:ANI while editing using a mobile phone! MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- With respect, where consensus is ostensibly clear and no administrator action is required, surely a non-admin closure is permitted, to allow the discussion to get underway at ArbCom? Also - the close itself was not done on my phone, I did that before this discussion started. I allowed Irondome to add a statement, unfortunately he broke the formatting, but in then fixing it, he was seen as an involved party closing the discussion. I have now re-closed it. Mike1901 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- You seem terminally confused. Irondome (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- They are difficult to read so. Perhaps you would consider re-factoring them.
- As for consensus. When a discussion has been open for a week and there is clear consensus for one of the proposals therein, the consensus to override that is not generally assumed to occur in a single day when even that brief discussion has Oppose opinions. As I believe you have been told already. What's more, the place to seek additional consensus on closures of ANI threads is not, I believe, Mike1901's talk page. MPS1992 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- What can you not grasp about I did not come here to seek consensus? Irondome (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I personally don't mind whether the closer is an administrator or not. However, given the controversy in this case, I've just made a request at WP:ANRFC for an uninvolved administrator to make a closure. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@MPS1992: Genuine side-question - where in policy does it say that only administrators should close controversial discussions. Also, I don't appreciate your latest edit summary implying I was involved... Mike1901 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Policy does not require that an administrator close controversial discussions. However, many editors think that it's good practice to have an admin do it, simply because they're generally more experienced and have higher community standing to do that sort of thing. From a policy standpoint, any uninvolved editor has the ability to close most discussions, which is why I didn't particularly mind that you had closed it. Relevant is this request for comment from 2013, in which the community agreed that RFC closures made by non-administrators cannot be reversed solely on the basis that the closing user is not an administrator. However, generally, when closing a contentious discussion like this one, it would be reasonable to expect some controversy with regards to the non-admin closure. Such controversy isn't worth the time, in my opinion, and hopefully an uninvolved admin will stop by and get the ball rolling soon. Please don't take this as criticism of your closure – I'd like to thank you for it. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
|
You still acted in the spirit of the project Mike. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
Can you do us a favour?
- Please can you reopen the Wikicology ANI for a moment? I was going to register a vote and I would like it to be there for the record. It's on the ANI closure section. I will be watching. I already have it copied, just need to paste it. There was an e/c. Cheers Irondome (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Im on my phone so not easily on such a long page, but please take this as express permission to add your vote into the closed discussion - link to the diff of this message in the summary. Mike1901 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I suspect you're going to take some flak for being so WP:BOLD in non-admin-closing such a contentious discussion at ANI, so I just wanted to pre-emptively say thanks for doing it. I didn't have time to add my support to the "close and let arbcom handle it" vote but I think that's the right outcome, that you correctly judged the sense of the discussion, and that holding off to let the ANI discussion continue to flail around wouldn't have been very constructive. So, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, your close has been reverted by MPS1992 (talk · contribs), who believes there was a consensus for an indefinite block. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- And that such a contentious thread should be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Incidentally, why was this request made on this talk page? Is it acceptable under WP:CANVASS? MPS1992 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MPS1992: I closed the original discussion before this talk page thread started and thought the request to insert an addition for archive purposes only reasonable. Sadly, they then put it outside the close and I wasn't available on a computer to re-close again (editing ANI on mobile is near-on impossible) - this then confused another editor as Irondome fixed the re-close, but they were involved in the discussion. Mike1901 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you re-close Mike? The consensus is clear as glass for Arbcom involvement. You were spot on. Irondome (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case I would suggest that, not only should non-administrators not close contentious discussions where one proposal already has clear consensus, but also, they should especially not do so on WP:ANI while editing using a mobile phone! MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- With respect, where consensus is ostensibly clear and no administrator action is required, surely a non-admin closure is permitted, to allow the discussion to get underway at ArbCom? Also - the close itself was not done on my phone, I did that before this discussion started. I allowed Irondome to add a statement, unfortunately he broke the formatting, but in then fixing it, he was seen as an involved party closing the discussion. I have now re-closed it. Mike1901 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- You seem terminally confused. Irondome (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- They are difficult to read so. Perhaps you would consider re-factoring them.
- As for consensus. When a discussion has been open for a week and there is clear consensus for one of the proposals therein, the consensus to override that is not generally assumed to occur in a single day when even that brief discussion has Oppose opinions. As I believe you have been told already. What's more, the place to seek additional consensus on closures of ANI threads is not, I believe, Mike1901's talk page. MPS1992 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- What can you not grasp about I did not come here to seek consensus? Irondome (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I personally don't mind whether the closer is an administrator or not. However, given the controversy in this case, I've just made a request at WP:ANRFC for an uninvolved administrator to make a closure. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@MPS1992: Genuine side-question - where in policy does it say that only administrators should close controversial discussions. Also, I don't appreciate your latest edit summary implying I was involved... Mike1901 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Policy does not require that an administrator close controversial discussions. However, many editors think that it's good practice to have an admin do it, simply because they're generally more experienced and have higher community standing to do that sort of thing. From a policy standpoint, any uninvolved editor has the ability to close most discussions, which is why I didn't particularly mind that you had closed it. Relevant is this request for comment from 2013, in which the community agreed that RFC closures made by non-administrators cannot be reversed solely on the basis that the closing user is not an administrator. However, generally, when closing a contentious discussion like this one, it would be reasonable to expect some controversy with regards to the non-admin closure. Such controversy isn't worth the time, in my opinion, and hopefully an uninvolved admin will stop by and get the ball rolling soon. Please don't take this as criticism of your closure – I'd like to thank you for it. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote an entry for Asian Penis, Maryland, an actual place in Maryland, USA (Google it for proof), but it was deleted. Can you explain why? --Silogobolo (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- You did not include a WP:RS and a quick Google search verifies that the existence of this place (and others you created) is very unlikely. Also, as a small point, @Bongwarrior: did the deletion, I just tagged it for review. Mike1901 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikicology arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.
LaurenHill Academy
{````} Hi I'm not aure I'm using this poage properly I'm new to the Wiki. I am a parent and I recently made changes to the LaurenHill academy page. MIke deleted everything I worked hard to copy to update. MIke if you are here I think there is a mistake what is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy33389 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, this is due to the fact you haven't backed up any changes with reliable sources. Mike1901 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit to Remenskoye Airport
This edit was very obviously WP:NOTVANDALISM, Mike, which made this warning completely wrong. Please be more careful in future. MPS1992 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MPS1992: Thanks for the advice - I hadn't noticed that Huggle was issuing a L4 warning for this - I agree the previous reports are stale, especially for an IP user, but think a L1 guidance would have been appropriate - which is what i thought I'd issued. I did clarify (as you saw immediately above) when challenged. Thanks again. Mike1901 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Revert
Hello. Regarding your revert of the edit on Kosovo, I wanted to say you have made a mistake. I have not removed the content, but simply moved it (Demographics) above another section (Administrative divisions). I hope you acknowledge this, thank you. --Hyperwq+639 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Hyperwq+639: Whoops - I did indeed, for which I apologise! Must get some new glasses.... Mike1901 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, we all can make mistakes. :) --Hyperwq+639 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thanks
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| you stepped in on Paul Wager just when it was needed!. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
Reversion on Beer in the United States
Hi--
Thanks for the recent revision on Beer in the United States. And for helping to keep an eye on things. Why not a spam warning, though? A regular warning seemed a bit gentle. Prof. Mc (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome - as an IP editor for which this was a 'first offence', in my experience a friendly warning will often make the point just enough to dissuade them from doing the same thing again - as in this case as no further warnings were required to that particular IP user. Mike1901 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rollercoaster Restaurant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we talk about Huggle?
I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a highly active Huggle user (top 20, actually). The Wikimedia Collaboration Team is researching a project that we hope will be useful to people who use Huggle and others engaged in edit-review and anti-vandalism. Using artificial intelligence programming (in ORES) and other means, we believe we can create feeds of Recent Changes that are better tailored to the type of work you do, helping you to be more effective and efficient. (The technology will have other benefits as well, which we can talk about.)
We're in the early stages of planning this and want to speak with people like yourself to better understand your work, goals and issues. If you’re interested in helping, I’d like to set up a time to meet by video conference, so that you can explain and demonstrate (via screensharing) some of your workflows, and we can ask and answer any questions.
To participate, please email the following information to me, jmatazzoni
wikimedia.org, or send it to designresearch wikimedia.org:
- Username
- city/time zone
- Best time to talk to you?
- Email where we can reach you
- Please use the subject line: Huggle User Conversations
Thanks! JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
UoB again
I'm about to come up against 3RR. Would you intervene again please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk Page Vandalism
Just a heads up I rolled back some vandalism to your talk page by User:Shadoeboxin --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
|
Thanks for reverting the vandalism that guy did on my user page <3 MorbidEntree (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
May 2016
Have you read WP:OVERLINK? Now would be a good time to. Cheers. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have indeed! Unfortunately, my brain had a momentary lapse and misread your edit - my apologies. Mike1901 (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I also messed-up the date range, which made it look like a bad edit as well. No hard feelings. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Syllabification
Hello. Please, what is the syllabification of "Ciao" (Italian greeting) by using spaces to separate the syllables? 111.94.244.128 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Hello, and thank you for deleting the malicious text posted on my page this week. It’s frustrating that someone can continually post the same non-neutral, malicious text. Thanks again. kukani
- You're very welcome kukani! Just so you're aware - it's good practice to put new section at the bottom of talk pages - thinking about it, I should really put a notice to that effect at the top of the page.... no big deal though :-) Mike1901 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Regarding the Wiki page about me. I never wrote for Coronation Street or Eastenders. I DO NOT wish to be on Wikipedia in any form. I DO NOT want people to know anything about me that I haven't offered myself. I DO NOT want my past history available to see - it could (and has) affected my employment chances as employers have looked at this page and decided I wasn't for them based on the erroneous information and the inclusion of parts of my CV that have NO RELEVANCE to who I am now. I could, if I wished, add a list of everything I have done in the last 26 years but (I'm boring myself now) I DO NOT WANT ANYTHING ABOUT ME ON WIKIPEDIA. Look online. I protect my privacy completely to the extent that there is only one photo of me (from years ago and I didn't put it there) and an article that I was interviewed for. Other than that, nothing. Please Mike, I don't want this, I never asked for it, I'm not flattered by it. I want it gone. It's quite distressing. Lacherlichcat (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
HighBeam access working OK?
Is your HighBeam access working OK? I ask because others are having probs. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Contact
Hey ! Mike can you please send me an email at contact@gerrygogna.ca I have to discuss about the wikipedia articles. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.139.79 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Gerry, I would prefer to keep all discussion here if that's OK? How can I assist? Mike1901 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the last inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.68.132 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
hi i think the content that i added on cavite is valid. what's the reason you deleted? I also added a link to an official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.140.74 (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Chris Bonington
Dear Mike1901,
Your rapid response to my important addition to the biography of Chris Bonington, living legend, was surprising and not well received.
Chris Bonington is well-known to be a famous tea drinker: sipping from famous cups such as 1966's steamy English Breakfast prior to the first ascent of the Old Man of Hoy. These two noteworthy traits, mountaineering and tea drinking, are quite inseparable.
How can we help you, Mike 1901, and the rest of the wiki-world to recognize Bonington's historical tea-drinking achievements?
Cheers, Bill Hannegan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.58.155 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Please explain
See my talk page please. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC) I am going to assume we are done with this. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Revision to Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri page
Hey Mike, my revision was just removed. I have been working on this page since hours, the page was out of order and needed a lot of cleaning up. I have been referencing all of my content from proper sources. So please can you restore the changes I made to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the majority of that edit was not adhering to a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV. This is especially important with biographies of living people, and you may wish to read WP:BLP also. Hope that helps, let me know if you have any other questions! :-) Mike1901 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuddyPress. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you..
It is your removal of my comment that is vandalism, not my original comment. I have the same right to express my opinion as you or any other editor. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but refactoring another user's signature could be interpreted as a personal attack. I hadn't however seen your response at the bottom of the page first time round, for which I apologise, but please do not revert my edit correcting the signature. Thanks. Mike1901 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- And the change to the signature was most certainly unintentional, some sort of technical glitch rather than anything that I typed in, and nothing resembling vandalism. I'm pretty thick-skinned, but there are many new editors who would be scared off Wikipedia by such accusations of vandalism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Genuinely sorry - I thought you were implying that you were dismissing SwisterTwister's comment by editing the signature, hence my revert. I certainly didn't intend to come across WP:BITE-y above, and reading it back, I can see it reads as if I'm not assuming good faith here - which was not my intention either. :-) Apologies again and happy editing! Mike1901 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- And the change to the signature was most certainly unintentional, some sort of technical glitch rather than anything that I typed in, and nothing resembling vandalism. I'm pretty thick-skinned, but there are many new editors who would be scared off Wikipedia by such accusations of vandalism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
yes dude why i think i did good
yes why would you do this man get off line i mean cmon and dont forget to subscribe to richard hardy he does slideshows please thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.83.26 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Page "Simone Arrigoni" deleted for clear copyright infringement and copyleft notice added in the cited website
Dear Mike1901, I am sorry to disturb you but I am trying to edit my first article and I have many doubts.
Yesterday I created the page "Simone Arrigoni" Category:Living people but it was speedy deleted for copyright infringement.
Following the Wikipedia's guidelines, I have added in the website that I cited this copyleft notice: © 2013-2016 Simone Arrigoni. The texts of this website are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Now I would like to write again the deleted article "Simone Arrigoni" and I am wondering if I can do it without violating the copyright rules anymore, as the source website as the copyleft statement (it is written on the footer and it concerns all the texts published in the website).
I have already requested a cache of the Simone Arrigoni's website in webcitation.org, and it is now available at the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6kiU9rieI
I read the guidelines available here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Text_release and I would to be sure that I am going to re-write my article with no mistakes, so I'd need to ask you if I have to write BEFORE the beginning of my new article's text the following statements:
{{Text release
|URL = <nowiki>http://www.simonearrigoni.com/<nowiki><br />
|Archive URL = <nowiki>http://www.webcitation.org/6kiU9rieI<nowiki>
}}
HERE I CAN START WRITING MY NEXT, CAN'T I?
Many thanks for your time!
Best,
Simone
- Hi Miki1979, thanks for your message. I'm afraid that alone won't be sufficient. Please see here[38] for the correct procedure to follow - easiest is likely via e-mail. Many thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike1901 Mike1901,
Thank you for your quick reply. I actually do not understand why what I made should not be sufficient, as I have read your link and also the following guidelines (I paste them here, with the URL where they are written): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials
Granting us permission to copy material already online[edit source] One simple way to grant permission to copy material already online is to put that permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted. This is commonly known as a "copyleft" notice. This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain. For text, a good statement of release might read:
The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
If you verify text by placing a note at the website, you may wish to use {{Text release}} to make sure that your release is documented at the talk page of the article. Instructions for using that template can be found at Template:Text release. Please do not use this template if the release is not published at your website, as the text will need to be removed.
If you would like to allow Wikipedia or another English Wikimedia site to use your content, be it text or images, but don't want to put a license statement on the website, you still must release it under the free licenses noted above and can do so in the following ways:
For text, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org; (2) After sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. For images, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; (2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.
So it seems to me that if the right copyleft notice is published on the cited website (as now it is), and if I follow the Template: Text release (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Text_release), I can try to re-write my article.
What do you think about it? Many thanks again. Best, S.
IP Block Exemption Request
(removed - kindly dealt with by Ponyo and email sent to rangeblocking CheckUser with recommendations re widely used public hotspot) Mike1901 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined
I declined your speedy deletion request on Renewables.ninja. Please read my edit summary for an explanation why. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello
hello Mike1901 this is my first time to create a page for my important person. if you can help me to solve the problem that I made that I will be very grateful. this person is really a famous artist in the would but no one do a page for him. thank you for your helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onejau9 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nazi ideology of killing Jews
Dear Mike, First thank you for your Speedy deletion of my Article Nazi ideology of killing Jews, but instead of this speed action , it will be better to help me to write a good answer for millions of people who want an answer why did the Nazi and Hetler killed 6 millions jews, of course there is an answer even if this reasons are insane but still people want a clear answer for this Idology ... anyway I did contest the nomination ,and I would like to help me to complete it with me with your professional skills Thank you Sameh Shawky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samehshawky (talk • contribs) 08:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Your IRC message
Hey! Sorry man! I was away from ze keyboard getting some errands done. Did you still need help? I'm doing well, by the way! I hope things are going well for you! Email or PM me any time if you still need assistance. Catch you around! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Mike1901. 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)
New deal for page patrollers
Hi Mike1901,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
William Collis Wiki Page - What Information Necessary?
Hey Mike,
I wanted to follow up on your Talk Note.
I am new to Wikipedia, and so thank you for your time and patience.
I'm happy to make the revisions necessary to the William Collis page, as I want to start creating more pages in general for new and exciting eSports ventures. However, I'm a little confused as to the sort of information that is necessary and appropriate to justify inclusion in an Encyclopedia entry.
Eg, if I were writing an article on eSports figure, what is the best type of information to justify encyclopedia inclusion? Is it press? Accomplishments? Scale of success?
For example, I look at a page like Eugene Chung for Football. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Chung
What is the material information Wikipedia looks for that is included on this type of page, but absent from William? I am happy to add more information; I just need a strong example here so I can understand the type of content that is valuable to include.
Warm regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage1337 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Article Deletion
Hi. Can you explain me what is happening and how to prevent this article deletion?
Regards, George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackeg (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi George/Snackeg. Most certainly - and welcome back to Wikipedia! The reason I marked it for deletion is that it reads very much like a tour guide (see WP:NOTGUIDE for an explanation as to why it doesn't fit into Wikipedia particularly well) page rather than an encyclopaedic article. Luckily, we have a sister project, WikiVoyage, where I think it would fit right in - so I'd encourage you to contribute it there, regardless of whether the consensus is that it should be deleted from the English Wikipedia. I hope that helps! Mike1901 (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, may not be an encyclopaedic article, but before, on this topic was nothing. So, is a beginning and from this, users can add more text and improve this article. Not this is the idea of Wikipedia? There are a lot more pages with less content that this one.
Regards, George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackeg (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not about the amount of content; in my view, the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopaedic, as it is written like a guide, not an encyclopaedia article (and culinary tourism covers, in encyclopaedic terms, the broader topic, so I don't think there's the need for both to exist). Did you read the link in my previous reply? Mike1901 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hello Mike1901. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — MusikAnimal talk 23:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
IRC
I missed you by around 30 seconds, as I was writing a ticket response when you pinged me. I am around still if you had a question. ~ Rob13Talk 21:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter
- Breaking the back of the backlog
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
- Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
- Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
Hi Mike
I tried to update the Fume Event and Aerotoxic Syndrome pages. They are both out of date and missing alot of important current information. I tried to do the reference links but not sure if they worked. If not then maybe you can look at the information I wanted to include and revise it in your own words with the correct link references. The referencing may be a bit more complicated than expected for me. I just wanted to help this community understand these definitions a bit better since I have a great deal of research to add. Yet, I doubt I will try anymore editing on wikipedia after these two since I do not understand the ref linking process well enough for the entries I would like to include.
Sincerely,
Porter Lafayette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porter Lafayette (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you review the page please
Mike1901 can you review the page Khasokhas Weekly please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HariKrishna123 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
Cubanate
in response to your reversion of my edit to the Cubanate page - which I have again corrected as well as updated. There was an enormous amount of irrelevant waffle on the page concerning fan Facebook postings etc.There was some some libellous stuff. Hence the edit. The new edit much improves accuracy, conciseness and clarity. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Parker (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message! The reason for my revert is you removed a large chunk of content which is all referenced to reliable sources. Usually, it is good practice to discuss such changes on the Talk page before removing cited sections en-masse. Mike1901 (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also - re. Cubanate page. I spent a lot of time correcting tenses, accuracy, synchronising italics, etc. It's extremely annoying when within a few moments someone comes along and less time than it must have taken to read it, removes the entire thing. I'm trying to improve a Wikipedia page! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Parker (talk • contribs) 10:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jimmy Parker: I fully appreciate that, and apologies if I've caused any frustration. As I say though, when a full paragraph (which is referenced) is removed as 90% of the edit, it does look at first glance like the edit was done in bad faith (even though I can see that it wasn't the case here). Do let me know if I can help further, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Mike1901 (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter #2
- Please help reduce the New Page backlog
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
- Getting the tools we need
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
December 2016
lists.wikimedia.org. -- samtar talk or stalk 16:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Remember to log out
Smash!
You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
account creator
After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:
- The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
- The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! Katietalk 17:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
ACC tool access request approved
Mike1901, thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have verified that you are identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and approved your request.
You may now access the interface here pending a tool root marking your account as identified in the tool database. Before you begin handling requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy to familiarise yourself with the process.
Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list following the instructions on that page. I also advise that you also join us on IRC #wikipedia-en-accounts connect where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and you can get real time advice on how to handle requests.
Please note failure to correctly assess requests will result in suspension of tool access. Account creation is not a race, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Releasing personally identifying information (such as IP and email addresses), whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated very seriously and will generally result in immediate suspension.
Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, and you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked as "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 05:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
(FYI, please ignore the note in the templated message above about the six account limit, since it seems that you already have the Account Creator permission on-wiki. --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 05:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Hi! Please read WP:TPO. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Hi Mike1901. I saw that you withdrew from your RFA, and that can be disappointing. I like to offer coffee to newly promoted admins, but I figured you could use some WikiLove too! Here's coffee, freshly ground, filtered through a French press, and comes black so you can add as much or as little milk and sugar as you want (Or none at all!). If you don't drink coffee, that's fine -- I can get you a hot chocolate. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks k6ka! Need it at the moment - RfA is emotionally draining to an extent you don't realise before going through it. Mike1901 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to make it clear that I don't think your RfA was at all premature. You were a strong candidate and I think had good prospects of succeeding had your RfA continued. I certainly hope you haven't been too discouraged by the experience. You do great work here and I hope you will run again when you feel ready. Having done both, I can assure anyone who is wondering that dealing effectively with OTRS emails is a lot harder, more time consuming, and demands far more interpersonal skill than being an admin on enwiki. WJBscribe (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
RfA
The three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia. Don't get discouraged. I didn't see any red flags in your background which generally looked impressive. I think you got it right in recognizing that you just need a little work in some other areas. Spend six months doing some content work and adminny things and I think you will cruise through your next RfA. Thanks for stepping up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was disappointed to see you withdraw, but I understand your reason - though I must add that I think you would still have passed had you stuck with it. If you apply the skills that you have undoubtedly been using at OTRS on some more on-wiki areas, six months down the line I think you'll get through easily. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks WJBScribe, Ad Orientem and Boing! said Zebedee for your kind words. To address the feeling that it may not have been premature - I felt that I'd rather run and (potentially!) sail through in 6 months to a year than risk the sentiment of the RfA continuing its negative trend and possibly harming those chances. It was giving me echos of Oshwah's first RfA at a similar point, in that respect. Don't worry though (after thoughts to the contrary for about 20mins from withdrawal), I don't plan on going anywhere :-) Mike1901 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, just come on line and obviously realised that you have withdrawn the RfA. You probably made the right choice at this time, but I was certainly going to support. I noted some intelligent comments made by opposers, and it was a good atmosphere. As I say it was your call and I think you may have made it, but maybe a few months down the line it will be a cert. You do great work mate, and I think you will have the mop in 2017 deffo. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mike: Please count me on the list of folks who believe you would have passed, entirely respect your decision to withdraw, and most importantly, look forward to being able to support in the future. --joe deckertalk 16:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Add me as someone who just went to your RfA page intending to support and found that you've withdrawn. Good luck for all your future work, and I expect to support when you decide you are ready. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, though I opposed your run, I truly meant you no disrespect. I know how shitty RfA can feel, especially when dicks like me who you may not have had much direct interaction starts scrutinizing you. Augh, I hate being a part of that. (Look over both my RfAs if you want a warm feeling of "Cyphoidbomb sucks!") Perhaps I could have phrased my oppose in the form of a question first to maybe get answers to some of my concerns--I'll have to think about that in the future. Anyhow, the biggest issue for me was that based on your editing history I didn't see where there was an obvious need to have the tools. It wasn't clear what problem was being solved by having them, and they are pretty powerful, so we want to be sure we're giving them to someone for good reason. While I'm not an edit count snob, I would like to see significantly greater editing experience (11k edits seems so "green" to me. Maybe I'm jaded...) and I think a few others said that it would be nice to see you participating in more discussions and dispute resolutions and things of that nature. Anyhow, I won't ramble too much. Just please know that my oppose wasn't anything personal, (although I bet it feels like it was...) and I want you to succeed, so if I can help you out in any way, please don't hesitate to ask. I'm sure you'll pass RfA a little further down the road. Warm regards and thank you for all your contributions up to this point, and for your contributions going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Cyphoidbomb and no offence taken - very much welcome constructive criticism! I think perhaps - and the fault is entirely mine here - I should have outlined in the initial set of questions exactly how OTRS volunteers need the tools in certain scenarios e.g. looking at image permissions or viewing deleted contributions to deal properly with a question about why a page was deleted. Also, much like the admin 'cohort' - although there are over 150 OTRS agents, and a significant proportion having access to the OTRS queues, not all are active all the time, so backlogs can build quite quickly, especially when it can regularly take upwards of 15 minutes to draft a response to a single enquiry. That said, I've taken the feedback on board so hopefully will be a more rounded candidate if/when I run again. Mike1901 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just throwing this here for posterity. I didn't realize quite how difficult the community would find it to evaluate an OTRS agent candidate for adminship. It's sometimes easy to forget that most people have no idea what OTRS is, let alone how much work goes into it and how important it is to the free knowledge movement. Remember that ridiculously complicated and testing situation you had that one time when an article subject started demanding changes to their own page against policy? That's just about every other ticket on OTRS, which makes OTRS some of the best possible experience on how to keep a level head, how to deal with tense/complicated situations, and how to collaborate productively in a hostile environment. These skills are what editors are really seeking when they demand things like content creation and talk page edits, but I don't know that the editors asking for those specific experiences realize how equivalent (or superior!) OTRS experience is to the usual benchmarks they use. The community has never been particularly good at evaluating a candidate who works in obscure areas, and I expected that. It was compounded by the confidentiality of OTRS. I was surprised by just how unable/unwilling certain editors were to take the words of multiple independent OTRS agents that Mike is doing good work. ~ Rob13Talk 23:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Editing Nicolás Garcia Mayor
I'm disgusted with your decision to delete our suggestions and hard work about the page of this person. I wondering why you don't edit the parts that you are in disappointment Cngm (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Cngm - essentially, all Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable, and extra care is taken for biographies of living people to ensure this is the case. You're more than welcome to edit, but please read the two policies linked in blue within the previous sentence first. Additionally, having noticed your username, the last three letters are the initials of the subject of the article; if you have a connection with Nicolás or are employed by him, then it is highly advisable that you don't edit the article directly, and instead request your edits on the Talk page for an impartial editor to add in. Mike1901 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a head's up where we are with this; all unsourced content has been dealt with and I'm now checking the sources pass muster. The principal stumbling block now is Anthony J. Lambert's Marylebone Centenary which needs page numbers, plus I'd quite like to read the book just to see what information from the 80s and 90s we haven't put in the article yet. I think this will need an inter-library loan or somebody with a British Library card that hasn't expired and enough time on their hands to get the source out from their collection. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Ritchie333, I may be able to sort that in the next week or so - I'm registered as a Reader at the BL (expired, but can easily renew as I've got a specific reason, and it's directly en-route to work for me). Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do - if I can get in and get the book, I'll also see what else can be used too! Mike1901 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Ritchie333!: Just an update re the above. Annoyingly the BL have decided that they don't want to renew my Reader card for Wikipedia research... though I might try again early next week. Failing that, think an inter-library loan might work, though not available anywhere in my local area apparently. Mike1901 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I popped into the library today - basically they can do an IRR loan from the BL subject to approval for £5, or there's a copy of the source to buy on Amazon for the same. Since we are not talking about a huge amount of facts, therefore, it's much easier to just go through and replace everything with other sources, which I've now done. Therefore I think the entire article is now properly cited to reliable sources and has had a copyedit, so I've put the article up for GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Ritchie333!: Just an update re the above. Annoyingly the BL have decided that they don't want to renew my Reader card for Wikipedia research... though I might try again early next week. Failing that, think an inter-library loan might work, though not available anywhere in my local area apparently. Mike1901 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I sent you an email. Go Phightins! 04:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
On this day, 11 years ago...
Hi Mike, Sorry to bother you. I am a new user and Wikipedia contributor. I have read the detailed explanation of why my created page is deleted. Thank you so much! I am really struggling in writing this article about Mrs. Schwarz. She has asked me in person to write about her! I did try my best to describe the person in question taking informations from the sources mentioned on the page. It is very difficult to explain the concept in your own words if there is no other way to describe it! She has given me the permission to use her picture, write the article about her taking contents from the various website that i have taken as a guide. Please, please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanja Radovanovic (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Mike,
A bit late but thank you for answering my question how to remove the #REDIRECT from my user page. Cheers Mill 1 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks
...for trying to help the user. However, just an FYI... --JustBerry (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks JustBerry - I did see that, but DeltaQuad had noted that she'd spoken to the user on IRC about the socking, and had indicated she might be prepared to unblock following that conversation. Plus the unanswered {{helpme}} tag was getting on my nerves. Mike1901 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.2
- A HUGE backlog
We now have 814 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
- Second set of eyes
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
- Abuse
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
- this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
- this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
- This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
- Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 814 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion on TNA article
I transferred the content from the Monday Night Wars article. This diff from March 31, 2010 contains the "copyright infringement" in question; The wordpress account that published the identical information did so on May 3, 2010. Please reconsider your deletion request. This was a case of someone else ripping us off, not us ripping them off.LM2000 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
ACC interface
Please login, you're on the dreaded 45 day list. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up Mlpearc! (as per the banner at the top of my Talk, my available time on Wikipedia is limited currently - I've logged in and carried out an action anyway, to show I'm still in control of my account and reset the timer) Mike1901 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- No problem. Activity levels (any kind of action, after logging in) are not usually an issue, logging into the interface once within 45 days is sufficient to keep you active , but if you do get suspended for not logging in all you need to do is contact a tool Admin and let them you would link to return. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 814 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Photobucket's new pricing plans
Stop changing my edits.
Photobucket's new pricing plans as per their page http://photobucket.com/pricing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.129.229 (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies, I reverted these as the description says pricing is as of October 2016, and you were also implying Photobucket no longer existed (changing 'is' to 'was') in a previous edit. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Dreaded 45 day list
Hello , just a poke to remind you to login to the ACC interface, you're on the dreaded 45 day list. Thanx, - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Mlpearc - thank you for your message and the suspension following this - as I'm now active on enwp again, would it be possible to have access to the ACC tool/IRC channel again please? OcarinaOfTime (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, just spotted you've changed your name to FlightTime :-) OcarinaOfTime (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- It seems that FastLizard4 has already restored your access. Welcome back. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: Jack Griffo
Out of curiosity, what was the edit? If you're able to answer that, of course. Unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it—email notifications don't show the actual change. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Was an IP deciding they were not very pretty looking, practising Judaism, and accusing them of sexual acts they almost certainly weren't doing... All in a rather unpleasant way. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- If I had to take a guess, probably something like falsely accusing them of doing stuff with minors or the like, but I won't ask for details. In any case, stuff like that usually isn't hidden from public view, but when it is, you know it's bad. IPs are so weird. I don't know why they think that stuff, whether revision deletion-worthy or not, is okay. Also, by doing that, you could potentially cause unneeded problems. I don't know if you've ever seen the Degrassi series, but it reminds me of when Darcy was raped, which is a story that pretty much spanned from when the incident happened until her last appearance. Still shaken up and not fully mentally stable, she begins to flirt with her teacher, Mr. Simpson. He ignores it, of course, and "turns her down," telling her that her behavior is inappropriate. After some events, she ends up accusing him of sexually harassing her, causing an investigation and putting everything of his in jeopardy: http://degrassi.wikia.com/wiki/Darcy_Edwards Without dragging on, it's essentially the same thing here. Like, I'm sure police or whoever have ways of telling, but you never know when inserting something that's 100% not true, like "X likes to touch people inappropriately," could cause problems. Even though it's not true and they end up being allowed to leave with no further questions or whatever, it still taints their reputation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding chipped ham.
I'm from Pittsburgh. I grew up on the stuff. I sell the stuff at my deli. How do you cite that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.131.47 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Admittedly perhaps with difficulty, but we don't allow original research - you'll need to find a reference to back up your claims. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
- Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
- Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
- The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through
General project update:
- Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
- Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
- Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
- On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
- Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
- Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
- The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
WHAT
I just spent hours doing those edits and was just going to add the sources when you deleted it. Please put it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex727123 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Adotchar has put it back - apologies for this, unfortunately school articles are regularly left without being sourced which is what we try to avoid, but good to hear you'll be doing so with yours! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Cary Academy Article
Hello, I noticed you left me a message about not citing a source; did you mean for the number of students? I got that number from the Cary Academy intranet, which isn’t open to everyone. Is there a way I should cite that? I can take a screenshot, but I’m not sure what I would do with it at that point. -User:45.18.33.250 19:22, 21 Oct 2017
- Welcome - and perfect (aside from new messages ideally being at the bottom of Talk pages :o) ) - to answer your question about sourcing - we've got a guide to this, including what's acceptable, at WP:RS. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Look, I dont know how to do this. Please help me i am at the breaking point.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, OcarinaOfTime. 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)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
- Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
- If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with:
{{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
- A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
- Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
- ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
- The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
New Years new page backlog drive
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
- The total number of reviews completed for the month.
- The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Who is Anne Lauvergeon ?! I never edited that page in the first place. Go and annoy someone else as I have enough issues tonight.
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
- We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
- We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
- ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
- Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
New Page Review Newsletter No.10
ACTRIAL:
- ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
- Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
- While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
- The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Warner Bros Films
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Guy
This is the reference to the error. The film is in Public Domain and the details in the above link are correct as I have the film on DVD. It is one of two films(the other is Something to Sing About/Broadway Hoofer) that James Cagney made with Zion Meyers for Grand National release in 1936 when he was having a contract dispute with Warner Bros-First National Films which was quickly resolved. Grand national was a film distributor in the period but it was short lived. Warners did not inherit those two films later at the demise of Grand National.
I was doing research on films I have on DVD/Blu Ray made at the Warners studio and spotted it.
Thanks
Ken Henderson/Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviepas (talk • contribs) 08:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
OcarinaOfTime, you opened this GA review page back on March 11, though there wasn't any actual review posted, and then added two days later that you had a heavy cold but would be back to start the review. That was your most recent Wikipedia edit.
I hope you are well. However, if we don't hear from you within seven days, the review will be considered abandoned and the review page deleted. I hope you do eventually return to Wikipedia editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
ACTRIAL:
- WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
- Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
- A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
- There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
- Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
- Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
- The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Talk:British Rail Class 700/GA1
Talk:British Rail Class 700/GA1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:British Rail Class 700/GA1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:British Rail Class 700/GA1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)