Revert Calibri Article to July 4, 2017 EditEdit
I here ask you to please revert Calibri back to July 4, 2017 edit. It is from July 10 and onward that people, majorly from Pakistan, have tried to edit that article and tried to add false information to accredit findings of JIT report. Before that this article has no mention of "release date" and many have tried to change its creation date. This JIT report was submitted before Supreme Court on July 10, 2017 and people have tried to accredit claims in that JIT report by changing Wiki article. The current version has locked false information and has no citations for "release date". So this article should be reversed back to where it is not controversial. --Awaisraad (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for adminsEdit
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page PatrollersEdit
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
- Gah, I vanished again shortly before you posted this :( What became of the discussion? Was a consensus reached? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- We tracked the number of page views from the testosterone redirect to testosterone (hormone) and testosterone (drug) that demonstrated at least 6:1 ratio in favor of the hormone. Based on that result, it was clear that the hormone is the primary topic. We then split out a drug article and kept hormone article as the main. So I think it ended well. Boghog (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
- NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
- Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It has been...years...since I last recall seeing you appear in my watchlist. It's good to see you around again, Fvasconcellos. :) Acalamari 23:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You have just protected the page Calibri from editing. Can you please revert it to its original form as on 10 July 2017. The changes made since then are unsourced and unauthentic. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrosby (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm sorry, but when applying full protection to a page because of content disputes, administrators generally protect the latest version, regardless of whether it is "right or wrong", unless there is evidence that the content is violating policy. Please see WP:PREFER for more information. The content in question was not unsourced—in fact, it was supported by multiple citations. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday's edit to the Calibri says that font reached the general public on January 30, 2007 and before that date it was not available to the general public, quoted with three bogus references which are pertaining to a court case and have nothing to do with the font's availability date. Whereas the reality is quite contrary to that, the font was presented to the public in 2004. In light of this I would request again that instead of disseminating wrong information to public, please revert this article to its original form as of 10 July 2017. Chrosby (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Chrosby, this is well addressed at Talk:Calibri, including with a comment from an expert on the issue. Let's keep the discussion there. I am willing to unprotect the page or revert it to a previous version once there is consensus to do so. The dispute itself is not yet resolved. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Fvasconcellos, I have gone through the Talk:Calibri. The experts have said in clear words that this font was available for general public much before 2007, which supports my argument. Even this article Calibri was created in 2005. Why so many changes in the article in last two days without any proof. It becomes very clear that these people are trying to manipulate a court case by these changes. Ref 1, 2 & 3 inserted in the article are totally irrelevant and don't prove anything. I will request again that article to be reverted to its original form of 10 July 2017 and locked again. Thanks Chrosby (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Chrosby, the experts have said nothing of the sort. What is clear and supported by references is that the font was designed from 2002 to 2004. Blythwood has explained the 2005 creation date of the article at Talk:Calibri. Read these responses from two typeface experts (Thomas Phinney and Edo van Dijk of Edenspiekermann) for more information. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- This would be of your interest. --Saqib (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll have a look. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify on Chrosby's claim that the font was "presented to the public" in 2004—this is true, but it was "presented" as in "shown," not presented in the sense of made available as a separate download apart from the Windows or Office previews. Among other things, the booklet “Now Read This: The Microsoft ClearType Font Collection” was published in 2004. But that is not the same as easy and/or wide public access to use the fonts. Thomas Phinney (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll have a look. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Wrong armenian Wikipedia logoEdit
The SVG armenian Wikipedia logo have truncated letters. How can I fix?
- There appears to be a problem with the font rendering. There is a newer version of the logo, have you tried using that? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back stranger!Edit
Orphaned non-free image File:BM&F Bovespa logo.pngEdit
Thanks for uploading File:BM&F Bovespa logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years agoEdit
About your suggestion "I'd just delete the redirect that currently sits at Quinolone antibiotic and move 4-Quinolones over there." I dont have the authority to do a move on top of an existing article. If you are an administrator, you can do this. I worry about a giant cut and paste to do the same thing. Advice welcome. Also welcome is your doing the same thing. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit
ah, ha! I see you have edited recently! Been missing your presence in here :( I completely rewrote DLB, and Ceoil, Colin and Johnbod are going through it right now, but your input would be most appreciated ... especially to make sure I have all the drug stuff correct, and linked correctly. My very best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
MoS:IMAGES listed at Redirects for discussionEdit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:IMAGES. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:IMAGES redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)