Open main menu


The Signpost: 16 January 2018Edit

IGI GlobalEdit

That journal. Check it out. It is quarterly, costs in excess of $500 per year, and each issue contains only a handful of articles, mostly by the editorial board. I could not find it in the journal citation index: it does not seem to have an impact actor. IGI Global is well known as an academic vanity press: this may be resume inflation or it may be IGI looking for halo effect, but it is controversial, so requires an independent source. Affiliated primary sources are only acceptable for uncontroversial content, as you know. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

My issue was with your removal on the basis that the source did not support the "emeritus editor" claim [1]. I checked the source, and it states that he is emeritus editor. You are also incorrect about it not having an impact factor, and the publisher is not on Beal's list. I'm also hard pressed to see how the subject being an emeritus editor of a journal is controversial. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK: there were two IGI vanity journals, I thought this was the one I removed more recently. I did check the page, it's there now, it was definitely not there when I checked. No idea what happened. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Bret WeinsteinEdit

Hi Bilby, would you have kept my page about Bret Weinstein had I included more info about his work in the field of Evolutionary Biology and his recent appearances with Jordan B Peterson and Sam Harris? I'm asking so that I can improve the page and make it follow the guidelines. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunkworks22 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The deleted content was still WP:BLP1E. I don't think anyone is unaware of Weinstein's epic bout of whitesplaining, but the AfD was pretty much spot on IMO and this is well covered in the Evergreen article. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Have the socks been emailing you? They have me, demanding inclusion of the usual resume-padding. I'm not inclined to proxy for them, especially given the number of socks now blocked. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I have not been contacted regarding the article, except for the messages here which you reverted. - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Igi global is not vanity press. It is indexed in web of science clarivate list (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This book is not in the wikipedia biography Peter lang s the 6 ranked most important published of the world per SPI rankking list. Tracing Spikes in Fear and Narcissism in Western Democracies Since 9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

he is editorial board member of two important journals, ranked as Q1 in Scopus Scimago. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality. EMERALD Journal of Destination Marketing and Management. Elsevier.

Robert. (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: January 2018Edit

This Month in Education

Volume 7 | Issue 1 | January 2018

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue

Featured Topic

Bertsomate: using Basque oral poetry to illustrate math concepts

From the Community

Wikimedia Serbia celebrated 10 years from the first article written within the Education Program

WikiChallenge Ecoles d'Afrique update

The first Swedish Master's in Digital Humanities partners with Wikimedia Sverige

How we use PetScan to improve partnership with lecturers and professors

From the Education Team

The Education Survey Report is out!

Education Extension scheduled shutdown

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 18:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018Edit

David Wolfe (entrepreneur)Edit

Has a very extensive "criticism" section, but the latest item seems well past "undue" to me, and you might wish to take a look there. I left a message on the talk page, but the BLP already has had problems in the past, and you might gain from gazing at it once more. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

OnePath Network ArticleEdit

Hi, Bilby

For OnePath Network, (I admit it's a paid job, and it's the only paid one out of my 15 articles and +300 edits on various Wikimedia projects). But I tried to be as neutral as possible.

  • The first paragraph: Simple words about the company + how they publish their content + a brief of their work.
  • History: a simple introduction to the company's fundraising, no details.
  • Growth: Statistics from sources + Mentioning Main three members of team + 2 examples of reception earned by other prominent newspapers.
  • Content: Formal briefing of their programs.
  • Interviews: Neutrally giving examples of exclusive interviews made by the network.
  • Presenters: Stating names of presenters.
  • Awards: Plain mentioning of awards earned.

I used many sources (The Guardian, HuffingtonPost, ABC.Net, DailyMail, Daily Telegraph, Governmental websites and others).

  • Note 1: I searched for similar approved published Wikipedia articles (about Islamic online networks) to make this new one, I found AJ+ and followed it.
  • Note 2: I added Paid Contributor disclosure.
  • Note 3: (Update): I made some edits, removing what might be considered promotional or info that is not able to be verified.

Thanks in advance and sorry for any disturbance. عليّ سعيد (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018Edit

Do you have any suggestions about how I might help beyond writing articlesEdit

I am retired and might enjoy volunteering after years of working many long hours under stress in the IT industry. I read widely (mostly non-fiction and science related) and have thought about editing articles about books I have enjoyed, but not sure that Wikipedia is the venue for that, as Amazon, Goodreads, etc. seem to have taken precedence in Google.

Do you have any suggestions.


Gregorybarry (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

:I know thw stress of working in IT. :) I'll try and write a proper reply tomorrow (I'm currently stuck with some tight deadlines due very soon so I can't spend much time here), but there's always lots of little jobs that I find need doing - from cleaning up prose to checking copyright concerns. Some are more painful than others, but there's lots of jobs worth doing. To be honest, though, I think the most rewarding is working on articles, especially with others. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for the English WikipediaSubscription list for the multilingual edition

Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "Visual differences", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changesEdit

  • The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
  • The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [2]
  • Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [3]
  • The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work togetherEdit

  • The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
  • Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
  • The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either <references /> or the plain (no parameters) {{reflist}} template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [4]
  • If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2018Edit

This Month in Education

Volume 7 | Issue 2 | February 2018

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue
From the Community

WikiProject Engineering Workshop at IIUC,Chittagong

What did we learn from Wikibridges MOOC?

Wikimedia Serbia launched Wiki scholar project

Wiki Club in Ohrid, Macedonia

Karvachar’s WikiClub: When getting knowledge is cool

More than 30 new courses launched in the University of the Basque Country

Review meeting on Christ Wikipedia Education Program

The Multidisciplinary Choices of High School Students: The Arabic Education Program; Wikimedia Israel

From the Education Team

The Education Extension is being deprecated (second call)

The 2017 survey report live presentation is available for viewing

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 08:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Capitals00 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecatedEdit


Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  Donexaosflux Talk 17:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

12 years of editingEdit

  Hey, Bilby. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018Edit

RevDel might be neededEdit

Hello, Bilby. I noticed that, earlier today, you removed an edit summary from the article on Andrew Wakefield, describing it as a "serious BLP violation". A few hours later, the editor who posted that summary repeated it on the article's Talk page (as seen here). It was removed (by the same editor) a few minutes later, as seen here.

If that summary was serious enough to remove from the article's page history, it seems serious enough to remove from the article's Talk page history, as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As this consists of deleted comments, I've passed it on to the oversight group and we'll see what they think, along with my earlier revdel. - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. It might be helpful to note that the editor restored those comments to the Talk page, with this edit. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
We'll see what happens. I'm not sure they'll respond, but it is something they're in the best position to consider. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: March 2018Edit

The Signpost: 26 April 2018Edit

Catherine Deveny - Anzac days commentsEdit

Please do not engage in an edit war over this section. If you could discuss the section in the talk page. Given Deveny's recent comments on AnZAC day were mentioned in various newspapers in Australia, I think it entirely reasonable they are included in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We can leave the section for the moment, but we need to make it WP:BLP compliant. - Bilby (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to make it balanced with her stated arguments, and any counters for those, to achieve WP:BLP. In her recent discussions about ANZAC day, she has proposed a number of criticisms, and some of the media had made counters for those, eg claiming that being a soldier is no more dangerous than being a roofer. I'm also going to add in some more references. She has been engaging in comments about anzac day for some years now, in a number of different media, and it has achieved notoriety, so its no longer just a one off twitter comment, perhaps as portrayed in the article previously - IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello! I would like to ask about the previously deleted page about PromoAffiliates, as it was very recently the subject of deletion, as was the page of what appears to be the subject's founder. I am trying my best to hop around and fix notable pages marked as "advertising", and would like to ask for you input on PromoAffiliates and Aaron Leupp (I hope I spelled that right). After some googling, it seems that resuscitating PromoAffiliates is worth the effort, but as always, I want your input on whether I should do it or not and if there is anything in particular that happened before that I can attempt to avoid this time around (I can't access the deleted page). The reason I ask if it's worth it is because it appears that the page was created by a sockpuppeteer and (Maybe?) a paid author, so I don't want to jump in and do work on a page that has no business being here.

Thanks again for your help! WikiSniki (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Both articles were made by paid authors, and per WP:PAID you will need to meet the terms of use and disclose your connection with the client if you decide to do any work on these. Neither appears to be viable at the moment anyway - in particular, the Aaron Leupp article was recently deleted, and it would be unlikely that things have changed enough to warrant a new article this soon after the AfD. - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your help! I'm not paid or anything, but I like to target articles that are mentioned for AfD because of biased language or advertising. I'll give PaidAffiliates a try because it seems to be notable enough, but I'll try to keep you posted if I have any questions about it. Thanks again! WikiSniki 14:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Shokugeki no SomaEdit

Hi, I'm just trying to find some way to indicate the very prevalent fanservice aspect of this series in an objective manner. I don't think anyone should be able to read through this entire article and then be surprised by the more mature content in the actual manga or anime. Evidently ecchi is not a genre recognized by wikipedia, which I thought would be the easiest way to note this, barring that I thought those lines from the cited review would do. Can you tell me why you disagree with that more specifically? I feel I was quite literal in how I paraphrased it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23B0:F2D0:8469:DED4:6C13:C59A (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The reviewer's concern was not with the orgasms, but with the use of apparent sexual molestation by tentacles in cases where the food is distasteful. So I wanted to be a bit more careful with the wording. I'd be inclined to change the comment to the tentacles, but that isn't really ecchi as such, and is only a small part of the series - having a moment of something distasteful isn't exactly unusual, but the reactions to the good food is a major part of the series and seems more significant. I'm surprised to learn that Wikipedia doesn't recognise ecchi - we should fix that - and I agree that this needs to be mentioned, I'm just not sure on the best way to do it. I'll try to help once I finish with some commitments in the morning, though. Maybe we can come up with something? - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply, and I acknowledge that I did cut some corners there in the interest of not taking up too much space on that subject. I added the "in spots" part to indicate that the reviewer wasn't necessarily put off by every instance. You're right that that isn't the best way to get that across because it would need to be noted what those instances were. In any case I agree it probably would be more informative not only for this series if ecchi was a recongized genre. I'm not really a frequent editor at all so I definitely would appreciate your advice at least finding a way to make a mention of this on this article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23B0:F2D0:8469:DED4:6C13:C59A (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@ above, for the show, if a scene did shown that for a moment, (a few seconds) and only once, then.. It is best to leave out. If it was to show the reaction from that "one scene." And if it was throughout the show. (Say if a 12 episode show and it has short scenes related to that, then if a genre that closely fits it. Can only be added if by a ref/ source.) Other than that, the edit from here showed this, <ref>{{cite web|title=Crunchyroll Ecchi Anime|url=}}</ref> as a link/ url to something that lists a bunch of shows to whatever genre it belongs to, isn't really o.k. to add... Then if one used a ref/ source just directs to a listed web-site that may have that peculiar genre(s) and all of its episodes, it isn't widely used like that. Under certain WP:MOS, etc.
But if a ref/ source does say it, like this one as this show has "harem." Then it is o.k. to add that named genre. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tainted-wingsz, I can understand that distinction. I really just wanted any feasible way to make that aspect of this series known, and I apologize for using an unsuitable reference. Would crunchyroll's page for the anime, which does have ecchi tagged as one of its genres, be more appropriate? I realize now that would have been a better starting point, the way I chose was a bit backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23B0:F2D0:8469:DED4:6C13:C59A (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's just that, the named genre or "phrased word genre" on the wiki. It only tells it is a type of "slang", and not a genre. As it might fit under a different genre, but same concept. While I'm only one person, there might be others with their own opinions on that. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2018Edit


Hello! Sorry to bother, but I recently posted a new page at AngelSense that I would like to be looked over by you because I've seen you all over the place and you really seem to know what you're doing! I'm trying my best at creating new pages and I want to be sure that I'm doing it right (no subjective language, advertising, etc.) especially because it's a company page. Thank you so much for your help, I really appreciate it! WikiSniki 16:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Zhang WeiEdit

Hello Bilby, can you please check if Zhang Wei (painter) is a recreation of Zhang Wei (Chinese artist) you nominated for deletion years back before I add the old AfD template on the talk page. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 13:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! It is certainly a different person. I'll follow up the references anyway, but I figure it doesn't need to the Old AfD tag. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you for looking at it. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your Help NeededEdit

At some point I intend to run for admin, do you think I have any chance? If not, what do you think I need to do? Thank you very much --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

outside chanceEdit

you might be still on - [5] looks like an interesting trail there JarrahTree 01:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It does - I'll look into that. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
spy vs [ spy - i suppose wikipedia as a battleground hasnt been somethng I had thought would occur on little old innocent austraian content JarrahTree 01:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Oh dear! I completely forgot. I hope you enjoyed yourself. Hopefully I'll remember next time and see you then. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops! Me too, though as it turned out I did participate, remotely, by cleaning up some of the mistakes made by new participants, such as adding a selfie to Adelaide. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
No hassles - we had enough people there, and Pru did a great job of running it. I also spent most of my time cleaning up some issues, but that's par for these events. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

some issuesEdit

That we have talked about away from here seem to be arising in all of the places South_Australian_Chamber_of_Mines_and_Energy, I am not sure my messages are being read or understood - thanks JarrahTree 05:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just got your email. I'll have a look and see what I can do once I get this lot of marking done. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
This has become such a mess, I now recuse myself for any further presence there, it is as though there is no interest in reading the messages or replies, or understanding WP:COI, WP:RS, and subsequent editors work simply has shown there is really no interest in understanding. If you are not able to go there - I hope an interested third party or an admin can make a sound decision. Thanks for replying. JarrahTree 11:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a bit more work to do here, but I'll do my best as soon as it is done. - Bilby (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
sorry to have bothered you - there had been an opportunity for the exercise be for a learning process, it seems more combative than collaborational, which is sad - it could have been a positive experience. JarrahTree 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll try and see if we can work something out - the problem is timing, as if I don't get this job done I'll be in massive trouble come the morning. - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: seems to have roped me in. I don't seem to have been able to do anything useful. Good luck, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
(BTW: It's obvious this editor doesn't own the copyright for the logo - even if they themselves created it, their employer would own the copyright. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC))
The logo issue is an interesting one. You're right, but the logo is also simply a typeface with some colours, meaning that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. We should be able to use it once we update the license details. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience, appreciated. JarrahTree 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Do with this whatever you like:

It's nice to see that at last you are replying. The next step would be for you to pay attention to what has been said to you and for you to reply to those comments.
The content appearing about SACOME on Wikipedia is outdated. - It has been pointed out to you that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that records facts and history. It has been pointed out to you that facts that become out of date become history. This is NO reason to remove data that was once fact and is now history.
As i have been trying to edit the information - No, you haven't been "trying". You have been removing. This is called censorship.
its strange that the the old content keeps reflecting back - Why do you think this is strange?
i am not permitted to delete the below sections despite they being non relevant to the brand which i explained earlier in my remarks - Working backwards: no, you haven't explained; no, facts ARE relevant; no, you're not permitted to delete facts.
DIRT TV awards happened. They were sponsored by SACOME. They are historical facts. They are relevant.
Advocacy. Ditto.
Image of CEO: Are you trying to tell me he wasn't the CEO?
Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

New requestEdit

Hello, Bilby!

I have cleaned up the language on Eddie Rosenstein to make it neutral. Could you be so kind as to reconsider the COI template, please? Many thanks ahead of time for your attention to this. TK FoOC (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2018Edit

This Month in Education

Volume 4 | Issue 5 | May 2018

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue
From the Community

Creating and reusing OERs for a Wikiversity science journalism course from Brazil

Inauguration Ceremony of Sri Jayewardenepura University Wiki Club

Wiki Education publishes evaluation of Fellows pilot

The first students of Russia with diplomas of Wikimedia and Petrozavodsk State University

Selet WikiSchool

From the Education Team

A lofty vision for the Education Team

UNESCO Mobile Learning Week 2018, Digital Skills for Life and Work

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 21:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What on earth was that about?Edit

On my Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea, but as it seemed to constitute a threat, I reverted and blocked. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right to die, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inalienable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018Edit

This Month in Education: June 2018Edit

Undelete requestEdit

Hi Bilby, an article created by User:Danimations on The Cliffs Golf Resort on Kangaroo Island was deleted back in January, IMHO mistakenly, given the strength of public opposition to the proposed sale of sensitive Crown land for the development. The sale was blocked by the Weatherill government, but following the March election a lease over the land was approved by the incoming Marshall government, and the issue remains controversial. Can you please undelete the article as a draft in my userspace? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. :) It should be at User:Bahudhara/The Cliffs Golf Resort. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! It may take me a little while to get around to fixing it, but it was a hot topic on a recent visit to the island. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this, gents. I agree that the topic is noteworthy and will only continue to grow in noteworthiness. --Danimations (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guild Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Guiler Wars SuggestionEdit

I didn't revert on Guilder Wars because I don't want to be involved in any edit war. But it doesn't mean I endorse their edits. I directed them to the consensus reaching page about whether Guilder Wars is or isn't a MMO and warned them. JC7V-constructive zone 05:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

USS Joseph K. Taussig (DE-1030)Edit

I see you deleted this page last night under G12 copyright infringement. I of course can't see the page now but it strikes me as unusual that a page on such a subject would be copyvio. I am wondering if the cause was text copied from DANFs or Hazegray which are open public sources which we are allowed to use? Lyndaship (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The wording rang some alarm bells, and I found duplicate text in the wayback machine that predated it and claimed copyright. However, I was also concerned that it might have come from elsewhere, as similar articles I could find the public domain source, so I was checking into that when I read your message. As you thought, there was another public domain source that predated the copyrighted source that predated our article. :) Sorry for any problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuseEdit

The IP address editor was back and there may be more to revdel. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Peter DuttonEdit

Please put this article on indefinite or 1 year instead of 3 days, because once 3 days ran out, the IP vandals will at it again, and there's high chance that Dutton will become PM in another party room meeting soon. Protecting a high conflict article is sooner better than later. Thanks (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018Edit

This Month in Education: August 2018Edit

This Month in Education

Volume 4 | Issue 8 | August 2018

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

In This Issue
From the Community

The reconnection of Wikimedia Projects in Brazil

Christ (DU) students enrolls for 3rd Wikipedia certificate course

Educational wiki-master-classes at International "Selet" forum

54 students help enrich the digital Arabic content

From the Education Team

Mapping education in the Wikimedia Movement

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 03:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph K. Taussig Jr.Edit

You deleted the earlier version of this article as work of a sockpuppet. There was another draft, with different content, in draft space. It has now been accepted. Can you please check that none of the listed authors (before me and SmokeyJoe) were known sockpuppets of the blocked or banned user? Thanks. Also, I have requested undeletion of the deleted page to my email so that I can improve the current article. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I was just writing a reply on AFC. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, well. A strange sad story. Sad among other things that someone in Taussig's family, who is hiring the paid editors, doesn't have his honor. (I wouldn't expect paid editors to have honor, but one can hope for it in the family of a naval hero.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Paddy SteinfortEdit

Hi! I think you closed the deletion discussion for Paddy Steinfort way before its intended relist period. The relist typically lasts for 7 days. Also, the deletion consensus in its form now doesn't truly reflect the discussion. I think it may be wise to reopen the discussion. Bradgd (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It had gone well past the date it would normally be closed, and the new influx of paid (and block evading) editors was going to do nothing but mess it up even more. - Bilby (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The relist was on 2 September. It should be closed 9 September. Still, none of those who voted a 'Keep' are blocked. I still think it is the right thing to reopen it. Bradgd (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It has been open for almost a month, and the !votes have pretty much settled. At the same time, two more paid editors have just been hired to vote keep, along with potentially others. I'll write a full rationale, but if we keep this going all we'll do is give time for more people to be hired, and I can't see any new arguments emerging at this point. - Bilby (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
How were you able to determine that they are paid? If so, is that an excuse to close a discussion before its date? The discussion in its form without much evidence serves a 'No Consensus'. Bradgd (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from - personally, I'm generally loathe to play the IAR card, and in a normal situation I would have let this run out until the end. The problem is that with the advertisement still active and more people being employed, it is only going to get uglier and create a worse situation for the client. The advertisement is on Upwork, as was the original job to write the article. So far, four editors have been hired directly to edit the article - three to vote, and the original to create it - and a fifth person has been hired to work on background. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Without much evidence, I think the closure has no point and you are being fanatic just because you don't feel their argument that the article should be kept. What I'd advise is you reopen the discussion, block paid editors if any(given you have strong evidence) and strike their votes. Bradgd (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I do intend to block the various paid editors who were involved with that AfD. - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that these editors received pay for voting? I understand your point and I'm actually willing to change my attitude if presented with a credible evidence. And sorry for not giving you the heads up in Deletion review. Bradgd (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


You might want to clarify your comment at the BLP talk page, everything was very well said and I agree with you 100%, but you also added this incomplete sentence "If this is what the proposed wording" below you comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Typos seem to be my thing. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent SPS editsEdit

Hi, I'm JoJo Anthrax. Could you explain why you have recently chosen to remove citations to Retraction Watch, claiming the citations are "not needed?" I note that Retraction Watch has been found to be a RS and, in my opinion, the citations you have removed from Marc Hauser and Ariel Fernandez are rich in relevant content. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been informed that Retraction Watch is a self published source. Is that not the case? - Bilby (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not the case. Retraction Watch is published by the Center for Scientific Integrity, an organization with a board of directors and independent funding (e.g., a MacArthur grant). Editorial oversight is provided by two professional journalists with expertise in science reporting, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, who also author many of the articles. There was a discussion of Retraction Watch at the Reliable Source noticeboard a few years ago, with the consensus being that it is indeed a reliable source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I would like to interject a point that is often lost in these types of discussions, that RS and SPS are not mutually exclusive, some SPS are RS (expert blogs for example) but SPS are not acceptable for BLP content, even if they are RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Concerns have been raised elsewhere that this is an SPS. If not, that's fine. However, I have only removed it in cases where there is better source available for the claims. There's not typically a need to have two references, if one reference fully supports the claim and is not even remotely questionable. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to Bilby and the others for your comments.
Again, and as can be verified at the Retraction Watch (RW) site, RW is not a self-published source. Speaking to Tornado chaser's comment, exclusivity of RS and SPS is thus not an issue here. Could you refer me, Bilby, to the "elsewhere" at which the SPS concerns about RW have been, or are currently being, raised?
Regarding your other comment, could you also, for the edits being discussed here, identify the objective criteria that render the sources other than RW "better?" Additionally, I am unaware of any WP policy or guideline indicating that citations to single RS are preferred to multiple, independent RS. It is certainly true that for a given item sourced to USA Today, for example, it is unnecessary to also cite outlets from within the Gannett company, as the latter are likely to be highly similar to, if not cut-and-paste replicates of, the USA Today story. But that is not the case with the RW reports which, as you will know from reading them, are independent. Lastly, and in general, RW articles contain information often absent from other sources; e.g., detailed coverage of the investigatory mechanisms at the relevant institutions. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The issues around Retraction Watch seem complex. Recently I've seen claims here that it is an SPS, and there are very mixed opinions on the subject when working through the WP:BLPN and WP:RSN archives. On the other hand, I agree that it doesn't appear to be an SPS. Most of the arguments I've seen as to why it is ok are based on how their claims are sourced. Given that, we have the option of either using Retraction Watch to with some questions remaining about its status for BLPs, or in cases where it is only being used in a BLP to source a statement along the lines of "this paper was retracted", just use the unquestionably reliable source of the original journal, which sidesteps the problem.
As to reliability, I think we can say that the journal which published the statement "this paper was retracted" is more reliable (as in, less likely to make an error) than a secondary source which says "that journal retracted this paper". Given that the second source is republishing what was in the first, the first is the most reliable of the two. This is the same as why we'd choose to go to the original source for a quote, rather than using a quote of a quote - I've seen people try the latter, only to find that second source they found was misquoting the original. If the original is available it would be the safer route. - Bilby (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I am pinging several editors who in the past have commented on this, or a related, issue/topic in various fora, and I thank them in advance for tolerating my presumption and for any comments/advice/wisdom they can add to this discussion, either here or at other article talk pages (see below). @Stuartyeates:@Nomoskedasticity:@Jytdog:
I have reviewed the various archived WP:BLPN and WP:RSN discussions involving, directly or indirectly, Retraction Watch (RW). The discussions I found date to 2015 and earlier. I do not see the complexity that you apparently do. What I do see are discussions for which a clear majority of discussants identify RW as a reliable source. Those in opposition to the use of RW as a source on enWiki were, for the most part, either operating under the false assumption that RW is a SPS (which you now also recognize is a false assumption), or the editor disliked RW because they were themselves a subject of RW articles; that is, Ariel Fernandez and his IPs and sockpuppets. In none of those discussions have I read any suggestion that RW is in any way inferior to other, "better" sources (using your term).
You earlier expressed a preference for using single sources, but I remain unfamiliar with any enWiki policies that favor the use of single sources over multiple, independent sources. I have not read anything in the earlier discussions that suggests RW is not independent, and in my earlier comment I explicitly noted that RW typically provides substantially more extensive and detailed information about the topic than other sources. It is precisely those features of RW articles that make me believe the pages for Marc Hauser, Ariel Fernandez, and List of scientific misconduct incidents have not been improved by your removal of citations to RW.
Although I understand the point, I do not agree with your primary v. secondary source argument of reliability to justify removal of RW citations in favor of brief, typically content- and context-free 'this-paper-has-been-retracted' announcements from journals. If I understand your argument correctly - of course I might not - and if we take major crimes associated with BLP as an example, according to your model enWiki should ONLY cite press releases from the relevant police departments/district attorney offices (what you term "original" sources of fact) and no media sources that report such crimes. I believe most editors would reject such a model, and if it was widely adopted the encyclopedic value of enWiki would be significantly weakened.
Lastly, and returning to the original good faith edits at issue, I am going to revert them in the next day or so. Along with those reverts I will also create sections on the relevant talk pages so that community consensus for the edits can be reached. I thank you for your civility and willingness to engage in this discussion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately, I have no interest in edit warring over this. I think that where we provide a retraction watch link we should, at a minimum, also provide a link to the published source that retractionm watch relies on, but that should be acceptable whatever happens.
I am surprised that you do not see the issue in teh discussions, though./ For example:
  • WP:RSN discussion: generally supportive, but Dr. Fleischman opposed, stating that w=e should just use their sources instead.
  • WP:BLPN More about using it as a source about a lawsuit, some discussion of reliability in general. Decision was not to use it.
  • WP:BLPN: same issue as above, no consensus to use
  • WP:BLPN: same article, slightly different issue. Short and the OP was blocked as a sock. However, other editors expressed concerns that Retraction Watch is an SPS.
There are some minor mentions elsewhere, but are you sure that this shows that it isn't complex, and there are no concerns? Certainly a number of people support its use, but equally it has had some opposition - my thought was that we could fix this by relying on the reliable sources used by Retraction Watch, rather than Retraction Watch itself. It side steps any debate while retaining the claim we are wishing to support. That said, if Retraction Wacth is not an SPS, and it has sufficient editorial control, I have no problem with its use. I think we'll find that this has changed over time, but I'm perfectly ok with using it if the story was published with editorial control instead of being an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your response. I remain unconvinced that there is "complexity" in those discussions with regard to evaluating Retraction Watch as a SPS (it is not, despite your use of the word "if" above), a reliable source, or even a good source. In most of the relevant discussions those expressing concerns are in a minority and include people with obvious COI (i.e., Ariel Fernandez). We also disagree with the notion that sourcing Retraction Watch should require that other sources also be provided - there is no debate that needs to be sidestepped. I doubt, however, that either of us will convince the other at this point. So let's see if consensus can be reached at the various pages...hopefully without any "complexity" arising from Ariel Fernandez's sock drawer. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
(Sorry for the delayed response, I've been on holiday) We should definitely use retraction watch references. Almost all the retraction watch posts are secondary sources (a few are house keeping, etc which are not) and the encyclopedia is built on secondary sources not primary sources. They are the acknowledged experts in their field. Sometimes they're citing sources that are primary sources for the information and sometimes secondary sources which may or may not be used as well (and definitely should be if there's a direct quote). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I get the impression that there is a lot of confusion between what is a secondary source and what is a primary source, and when one is more reliable than the other. - Bilby (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018Edit

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

  Interface administrator changes

  Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

  Oversight changes

  Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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


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

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

This Month in Education: September 2018Edit

RfC withdrawn and restatedEdit

You had !voted at an RfC. I withdrew and restated it. See RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018Edit

Reply re: COIEdit

Hello, and thanks for the post on my talk page. I appreciate the concerns, but I am only a subscriber to the magazine. I am merely using it as a source of new information to add to existing Wikipedia pages. There is no conflict of interest. I understand that this approach has dominated my editing lately, but I do have other projects in the works. It is just that these edits involving SI have been the ones to fit into my time constraints. Thanks again for checking in! Drobertpowell (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletterSubscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changesEdit

Let's work togetherEdit

  • The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
  • The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
  • If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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


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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2018Edit

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

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

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

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

Apologies !Edit

Apologies for the mess I've made on your talk page! There was some mix up on the clerks mailing list about which user was to be added to the case request. Feel free to trout me for it. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2018Edit

The Signpost: 1 December 2018Edit

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  Al Ameer sonRandykittySpartaz
  BosonDaniel J. LeivickEfeEsanchez7587Fred BauderGarzoMartijn HoekstraOrangemike

  Interface administrator changes

 Deryck Chan

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news



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


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

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your good work keeping BLP vios (and POVs) out of articles, even when difficult. Also, thanks for starting the discussions related to harassment policy Tornado chaser (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

happy christmasEdit

from the oz west - trust the new year is a good one! JarrahTree 00:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I hope yours is equally good. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

David WolfeEdit

Stop vandalising Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with Snopes and Forbes as references. I'll report you and get others to if you keep trying to mess up articles. Cls14 (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Forbes contributor articles are self published, as they don't have editorial control. According to WP:BLPSPS, we can't use self published sources to make claims about living people except for their author, so we can't use the Forbes article to make claims about Wolfe. I agree about Snopes being more reliable, however Snopes only says that he posted a meme - it doesn't say that he believed the meme to be true - and it directly quotes Wolfe stating that it was not meant to be taken literally. Thus both fail BLP in this situation. I did explain all of this on the talk page, if you woudl like to take part there. - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!Edit

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you have a wonderful season as well! - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018Edit

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.



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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply re: RefspamEdit

Hi Bilby. I am attempting to add new information in good faith from a reliable source, which I happen to have in hand, in order "to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." If you have issues with specific additions because you think they fail to do what I intend them to do, fine. But reverting additions because they happen to generally cite a particular reliable source is not warranted by this policy. Rather than acting in the interests of the journal, I am acting in the interest of adding good information which happens to come from this journal. Nor is this my only project.

In short, as the policy states, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." Drobertpowell (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: January 2019Edit

Korean AdministratorsEdit


I am from a FANDOM community and, long story short, some of the spam I have been dealing with has bled over to the Korean Wikipedia. I do not speak Korean so I was wondering where I could find a list of administrators there so I can report the spam and have them initiate the deletion process because the article in question is unsourced and the one source it does provide verifies almost none of the article. The only list I could find was on Metawiki and it was old. I left a message on ChongDae’s wall, but I am not sure if he will get it since the talk page was on Metawiki.

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019Edit

Anthony J. HilderEdit

Hi Bilby, I am concerned about an editor on the Anthony J. Hilder page. The editor is AlmostFrancis and even though there's been some minor vandalism, I have a strong feeling this editor is agenda driven. There were some issues with another member editing stuff out but that's apparently dropped off. Here's why. Anthony J. Hilder is regarded as a conspiracy theorist. Now nominated for deletion. First nominated on 12:57, 19 January 2019. This AlmostFrancis has first fired up 05:28, 23 December 2018. He/she has a lot more experience than someone just a couple months old. There seems to be a deliberate persona impression too. What do you think?
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I am probably going to regret asking but what in tarnation is "deliberate persona impression" even supposed to mean? Also, as no doubt Bilby was about to inform you, diffless claims of vandalism are aspersions so please in the future either don't make them or add diffs.

AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Bilby, another thing that concerns me is that this member AlmostFrancis aka ???? seems creating a history of doing legit edits and then close to the time when the afd is closed, a possible sabotage will be done on the page. I do have strong suspicions and concerns. Already a couple or more of edits appear to vandalistic (Or not checking before deleting content - but he/she is more savvy than that). If you look at all of the 30 page edits to date from 05:46, 2 February 2019 to 05:26, 4 February 2019 with the exclusion of the Hilder Talk and your Talk page have, all the rest have been on Anthony J. Hilder. [7] No other subject! Sure the sock-puppet investigation added to my suspicions. But Bilby you hit on a very valid point. I'll discuss more later. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabotage now is it? What's next, treason or blasphemy? Of course you did call me to savvy to make a mistake so maybe it cancels out. Any intention to start adding diffs to your aspersions?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP questionEdit

I know you are pretty strict about BLP, so I want to ask your opinion on whether this sentence (in the lead of Thiomersal and vaccines) In spite of the consensus of the scientific community, some parents and advocacy groups continue to contend that thiomersal is linked to autism[10] and the claim is still stated as if it were fact in anti-vaccination propaganda, notably that of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. [11] violates BLP. I am not sure myself but don't want to raise the issue if there is no problem.

Here is the source[8]. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Here for something else, but for starters I would say use the original STAT as the source and not the republished Scientific American link. Credit where credit is due and whatnot. Is your issue calling his work propaganda or just its contemporaneous nature? If all you want to do is rephrase it so that it doesn't read as a forever ongoing issue that seems reasonable, otherwise STAT seems pretty legit and Mnookin is an expert writing in his speciality.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
My concerns are calling his work "propaganda", especially singling him out in the lead of an article on a general claim, and the fact that this article implies dishonesty on his part, rather than just error. Also I am not sure if the source is an SPS or not, per WP:BLPSPS even an expert writing in his speciality is not an acceptable source for negative BLP material if it is self-published. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What does SPS have to do with anything? Are you claiming he is the publisher of both STAT and Scientific American?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Your right, it's not an SPS, my concern is that it is quite a strong negative claim about a living person cited to a single source that looks somewhat like an opinion piece, but I wanted Bilby's opinion before I take it to BLPN. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news

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


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

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

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! See: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Young_Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims. Alweth (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2019Edit

The Signpost: 28 February 2019Edit

clementine fordEdit

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Recove `Dev Dhawal´ pageEdit

Mr. Dev dhawal is working for farmers rights and respect in Nepal . So help him to be respectable farmers societies in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultationEdit


Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link updateEdit

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

This Month in Education: March 2019Edit

The Signpost: 31 March 2019Edit

Bring your idea for Wikimedia in Education to life! Launch of the Wikimedia Education GreenhouseEdit

Apply for Education Greenhouse

Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupe

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

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

  Technical news



  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2019Edit

The Signpost: 30 April 2019Edit

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Kellie Loder PageEdit

Hello! I recently came across the Kellie Loder page and saw significant issues with it. Among other things, I shortened the ridiculously long introduction and moved any missing information to the main body, and also made the language more encyclopedic and succinct. After going to eat lunch, I noticed everything that I had edited was reverted by User:Walter Görlitz, who said that the reason why he was reverting my edit was because I did not provide an adequate summary of them. However, I did leave enough information to justify my edits, and after perusing the edit log of the page, noticed that almost any time someone else has attempted to make constructive edits to the page as I did, Walter Gorlitz reverted them successively. After visiting his talk page, I noticed also that he as been warned for edit warring on another page, and I fear that he is using the risk of edit warring to prevent editors from making constructive edits. If he reverts me again, I have no power to revert it back if his reasoning for locking down the page is bad because I will have passed the 24 hour 3 edit rule. I would like you to step in or at least mediate. There are many problems with the Kellie Loder page and I would love to be able to make it better without being stonewalled.

Let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to provide you with anything!

Thanks, DrumSalad (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why @DrumSalad: is involved, but she has been accused of WP:UPE and I suspect this is the case here.
For the record, DrumSalad is not anywhere near WP:3RR and no effort at WP:BRD has been made.
The issue is simple: the subject herself was involved in the article (which is why I suspect UPE). She started her career in the "Christian music industry" and, after a change in faith (which is not uncommon or unusual) wants to expunge that portion of her past. That's all discussed on the article's talk page and her own talk page. I'm fine with updating the article to reflect her current direction but rewriting the history, or even removing it, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I've thought about this a good deal, @Walter Görlitz: and wanted to reach out and apologize if I was a hostile earlier. I'm a bit up-tight today. I'll explain my intentions, and I want to get your suggestion for the right way forward. I do not want to bury the Christian music association as it was obviously a major focus of her career, however I do think that the folk/pop music association should go first so that her current musical focus is highlighted. The second thing that I want to do is slim down the intro section, because it is currently packed with detailed information that is already in the body. I think that the intro paragraph should succinctly highlight her career, but not go into detail about her inspiration for her first song at 16, for example, which can be found in the actual body of the article. By the way, is the subject directly involved in this page? You suggested that she is actively involved in manipulating the page to expunge the Christian music record. Could you link me her username so that I can see what she attempted to do? Again, thank you for your help. I want to work with you on this, as I'm certain that you also have concerns about the page that are in line with mine. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how I should proceed with this, because I will try to restructure the intro section again, but not blank it out completely. DrumSalad (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Update @Walter Görlitz:: I made a less intrusive edit to the intro section. Let me know what you think! DrumSalad (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you mind if we move this discussion off Bilby's talk page and onto the subject's article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not at all! DrumSalad (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

How Come You Don't Disclose That You Are an Admin?Edit

Hi. How come you don't disclose that you are an administrator on Wikipedia, on your user page? That is kind of deceptive to not disclose that, isn't it? Also, many times editors are looking for admins to assist in various circumstances, which I believe is part of an administrator's function. In your case, they would be unable to discern that you were actually an administrator, to ask for help... Please correct me if I am wrong that you are not an admin and have not been an admin for years...

My account is included in Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. - Bilby (talk)

Changed copyright condition on State Library South Australia photosEdit

Hi Bilby,

There are two photos that have been placed on commons where at the time they were placed there, the owner of the photograph, SLSA stated they were public domain. However when I look at the source pages I now see they are in copyright. I raised this with SLSA reference desk and they suggested simply asking for permission. I'm not sure it might be granted the same as public domain which is very compatible with Commons. There is a wider issue of the Grimmett collection and SLSA owned photos not currently in commons but which provide some of the very few photos available for some significant deceased individuals.

Example 1 -- Colin Thiele and Max Fatchen

Example 2 -- Don Dunstan - Government prior to 1969 claimed, that may be incorrect, is part of formerly public domain Grimmet collection

Can you provide me with some guidance as what best to do? Alex Sims (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok Speedy DeletionEdit

Hi Bilby,

I was surprised to see you deleted the Adrian David Cheok entry claiming copyright infringement. Obviously the timeliness of the deletion re: the Australian elections will be noted by anyone with knowledge of the subject and Australian elections. I may be wrong but I am not entirely certain the whole entry was plagiarised. Though indeed further citations and references were needed, over the recent months several citations and legitimate, valid references were included. This has been a controversial entry indeed, apparently created by the subject of the entry and then subsequently edited in a non-neutral way by arguably his students and himself (when anonymous, the edits did indicate Adelaide IPs). Is it possible that 'copyright infringement' was a handy excuse for a speedy deletion? I appreciate you are an Admin and that it looks like once the entry has been deleted there is not much point in discussing reasons, but thought that in the spirit of collegiality and public documentation I would share my concerns here. I for one never thought the subject was notable enough, but once there was an entry an attempt could have been made to keep the entry as Wikipedia abiding as possible. Thanks very much indeed in advance.

Predicatecalculus (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I confirm that almost the entire article as originally created by User:Dj68000 on 12 December 2011 is copyvio from the page Bilby found that existed (according to archive timestamp) from 11 November 2010 or earlier. That content persisted through to the deletion—it was still copyvio with no non-infringing version to rescue and retain. Copyright is a non-negotiable policy here on wikipedia, no matter what the topic or one's political leanings, and your failure to WP:AGF or cast aspersions/propose sinister ulterior motives is not appropriate. There was a "Controversies" section that was much newer, and whose editorial origins I did not trace. If you or someone else wishes to write an article about this person, I or another admin could revive it. DMacks (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. Just to explain my reasoning, the copyright issues were foundational - almost the entire page was taken from a copyrighted site when it was first created in 2011, with only minor changes in wording, except for an extended quote by Cheok that was copied from one of his publications. Since then that has remained the base, and while other text was added, a significant portion of the article used the original text. For example, the original source read:
"He has previously worked in real-time systems, soft computing, and embedded computing in Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs (Osaka, Japan). He has been working on research covering mixed reality, human-computer interfaces, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing, fuzzy systems, embedded systems, power electronics."
The text of the first article revision contained:
"He worked in real-time systems, soft computing, and embedded computing in Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs. He has been working on research covering mixed reality, human-computer interfaces, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing, fuzzy systems, embedded systems, power electronics. "
And the text as it stood at the time of deletion was:
"Cheok worked in real-time systems, soft computing, and embedded computing in Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs[citation needed]. He has been working on research covering mixed reality,[10] human-computer interfaces, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing, fuzzy systems, embedded systems, power electronics."
Other text in the article contained the same similarities. To confirm that this wasn't a case of the other site copying Wikipedia, I used the Wayback Machine to check a version that predated the creation of the Wikipedia article.
I had hoped that there would be a prior revision to revert back to in order to remove the copyrighted text from the history but still keep something to rebuild from - however, as this came from the first edit I had to delete the article as a whole. I also have absolutely no problem with someone creating the page again, given the potential notability problems you raise and assuming that the text meets Wikipedia's licensing requirements. - Bilby (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the responses! It is much clearer now. I am not interested at all in writing an article about this person- as I said, the notability in my view is questionable. Predicatecalculus (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2019Edit

The Signpost: 31 May 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wojciech WaleczekEdit

Hi. Could you please help me to move an userspace draft about an award-winning composer into article space? The draft is about Wojciech Waleczek—a succesful pianist from Poland whose numerous achievements deserve to be celebrated with his own Wikipedia page. He took 3rd prize at the Premio Mario Zanfi competition and was the absolute winner of the 4th Franz Liszt National Piano Competition—to name just a few of his accomplishments. Mr Waleczek already has his articles on German and Polish Wikipedia. Hope to hear back from you. Regards, AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarity pleaseEdit

Hi, Bilby - to begin, thank you for your good work at Attkisson and for starting the discussion at BLP/N. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what just happened on the Attkisson TP so please correct me if I'm wrong, but with consideration to the blatant noncompliance with BLP/NPOV and the fact that the article is subject to DS under Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Editing of Biographies of Living Persons and possibly even Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Pseudoscience, why was no immediate action taken to correct the noncompliance? I have never seen such resistance and mud-slinging against a BLP escalate without some kind of preventative action by an administrator. Cullen328 made an appearance, but how is it possible that WP:BLPCOI was overlooked? It was brought to everyone's attention. The WMF has even emphasized the importance of human dignity and respect, and how we are expected to behave when a BLP shows up to comment on the TP. I can't help but relate to what happened to me for using a bit of levity and jokingly misspelling a person's name in a TP discussion, and then after my t-ban appeal was granted, the ensuing harassment and gaslighting I'm forced to endure by 2 disgruntled admins who apparently believe WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED, WP:HARASSMENT and WP:PA don't apply to them. I'm bringing it up because I just witnesed battleground behavior at Attkisson, editors being extremely rude and unhelpful, stonewalling, and noncompliant with WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED, but it was allowed to persist. The result is terrible PR about WP over this very incident on Twitter and the internet. It's a bad reflection on all of us. Perhaps this is one of the reasons T&S is becoming more involved in the en.WP - not something any of us would like to see happen, much less encourage - but we're certainly not going to fix the problems with inaction. Please help me understand what just happened, because as an editor who was t-banned for taking polite and civil argument too far as others were doing but with incivility, and who is currently being harassed, it really makes me wonder what's going on when I step back and take a look at the big picture. I look forward to your response. Atsme Talk 📧 21:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Cullen328 re-ping Atsme Talk 📧 04:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally if we try to push something through - especially with AE rules - we'll get sufficiently pushed back that it will make things harder. I try not to use those unless I absolutely have to - it is much better to explain and work with editors than to drop enforcement on them, so that's my first choice. In this case I've been through BLP/N on this topic before, so I knew what the outcome would be, and that means that we'll have consensus instead of unwilling recipients of enforcement, and this would create a more enduring solution. (That said, I'm also involved, so I couldn't do much directly anyway).
I tend to give a lot of leeway on issues around vaccination. From my perspective, both "sides" are incredibly well intentioned. Those opposed to vaccination genuinely fear for their children as they are terrified that they will risk autism or other side effects for something that their children may never need, while those who oppose them (correctly, in my view) see anti-vaxx arguments as risking the health (and potentially lives) of children who cannot be vaccinated or whose parents chose not to vaccinate. Given that, I expect battleground behaviour - I don't have to like it, but I understand that the topic is emotional and important to those arguing. Equally, I don't like topic bans, because what I don't like to see is dissenting voices silenced unless those voices really can't engage with the process, as we need dissenting voices to maintain balance in some of these BLPs. (And we have a problem that there are now few dissenting voices in some of these topics, making the risk of unbalanced articles much higher). That said, there is a limit, and we were skirting it. - Bilby (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OMG - can we clone you?? If more admins thought like you, editing would be far more pleasant in controversial topic areas. My apologies for the baggage I incorporated into my question, but the train left me at the WP:POVRAILROAD station, and I've been forced to walk the distance with baggage in tow. I just tossed one those bags in the dumpster. Crossing paths with you provided a nice boost in restoring my faith in the system. Lead on, Bilby. Thank you and happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 13:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bilby and Atsme. As can be seen by a good look at my editing history, I don't care one iota about the vaccine issue. I'm actually very neutral on the subject because it's one I haven't investigated and, like the abortion issue, it's one I've chosen to stay far from as it's just too heated and seems to be lacking all rational, level-headed debate (except in rare cases). From a mile away one can see that it is a loosing battle to engage with those holding strong, myopic, binary thought processes on these issues. The truth, anyway, is rarely found at one of the extremes, and grows even more distant with accompanying hand-wavy arguments and insults like "science hater". In my case, though I have never edited nor likely even mentioned any pseudoscience on WP, it has been suggested that I have a major problem in this area, and that I'm a 'pseudoscience pusher". I'm seeing leeway given to this behaviour because, well, it's a controversial topic. But in my view, the problem we have when trying to create balanced articles is caused by editors who are fanatical about any given issue. I'm not sure that it's a good idea to allow activists on either side of heated topics to edit those areas.
One of my focuses here has been on BLP's, especially those that have become biased either by fans or foes running amok. To be honest, it's quite rare to find a balanced BLP. People who've edited Sharyl's page have largely been people who seem to hate her - from the choice of the Lede image (prior to my change), to scraping up and adding every random criticism that has ever been printed, whilst degrading mention of her many accolades - it became a hit piece. When I looked through some of the sources already in use, I noticed there was an obvious exclusion of any argument from Attkisson explaining her vaccine reporting, even though the topic was being extensively covered in her bio. We used the Daily Beast for several bits of content, yet their mention of her stated justification for the reporting she's done, namely a verified statement from a well-respected scientist, was disallowed. In the Snopes article that everyone fought tooth and nail to include, the statement by Zimmerman (who is still with the CDC and remains in good standing, and who has not retracted his claim) was included, but suggesting it be added to our BLP resulted in personal attacks on me, and claims that I am "pushing pseudoscience theories" (theories??). This is one of the worst things an editor on WP can be accused of: pushing pseudoscience. And I have done nothing to deserve these claims. What is being excluded by activist editors is important, encyclopedic fodder. We are favoring Snopes as a source over a scientist with the CDC. This is why people make fun of WP. This is why Larry Sanger claims we never learned how to deal with 'bad actors'. Because we allow the loudest and angriest to control content. Mainly because we are volunteers and there is nothing fun about dealing with those types, or the never-ending noticeboards.
It should also be easy to observe that my suggestions to add bits from RS already in use, additions that give insight into Attkisson's side of the story, namely, why she reports the wild and crazy stuff she does, do not make me an advocate. If I worked on Hitler's article and wanted to add a quotation from him to give readers greater understanding of his rationale, does that mean I support his ideas? Shouldn't the public expect more from WP editors, such as the ability to think outside of the anti/pro dichotomy?
Anyway, you've got a great conversation going here. Thanks for letting me poke my head in. Enjoy, petrarchan47คุ 23:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation re-addedEdit

Bilby, your fix here has been undone. Since the page is locked to all but administrators, I wonder if you or El C can see to removing this violation. petrarchan47คุ 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following the rational. Perhaps take to BLPN, instead? El_C 18:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
El C you don't agree with Bilby's removal of the blog in the diff above? The rationale is stated in the edit summary, it's a violation of policy. petrarchan47คุ 18:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPSPS - "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." petrarchan47คุ 18:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It is now at BLPN, danke. petrarchan47คุ 08:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
My apologies - I have a flu, so I have been sitting around feeling sorry for myself rather than editing, and I should have got back to you sooner. When this has been through BLP/N before, the general consensus has been that we can use self-published sources to express the opinion of teh author, but not to express facts about the subject. Thus it is normally ok for us to say "Gorski was critical of ..." because that is expressing Gorski's opinion, but not "According to Gorski, only one expert was consulted" as that is a factual statement that comes from an SPS, so can't be used. Thus I removed Gorski's statements about Attkisson, but didn't remove Gorski's person opinions about her. I do have a problem with this approach as there will always be someone highly critical we can quote, especially with a controversial topic, but that is a difficult argument. I guess we'll see what happens at BLP/N this time. There are certainly those who have argued that we can't use an SPS on a BLP at all, but I'm not sure where consensus will lie as we've had a bit of editor turnover in that area of BLP. - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's a bummer. I'm sorry to hear this. Well, you sure are missed when you're under the weather. Please get well soon and when you feel up to it, the BLPN will be waiting. Cheers, petrarchan47คุ 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!Edit

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2019Edit

Editing News #1—July 2019Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon   to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releasesEdit

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projectsEdit

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking aheadEdit

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning moreEdit

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2019Edit

The Signpost: 31 July 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

Jenny McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:TPOC you are not allowed to retain comments making accusations of bias while collapsing shorter response to those comments. Either collapse both sides of the argument or leave both sides alone.

I would also remind you of this discretionary sanctions warning you received last year:[9][10] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had mentioned that you had raised this at WP:FTN, but I've responded there. - Bilby (talk)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019Edit

This Month in Education: August 2019Edit

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Example/Archive 12Edit


A tag has been placed on User talk:Example/Archive 12 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Similar to Archive 13, this was almost certainly the result of an errant archive script syntax. See

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Bilby".