User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2016/May

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

• News and notes: Wikimedia Switzerland's board and paid-editing firm; passing of Ed Dravecky

• In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps

• Traffic report: Purple

• Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks

• Arbitration report: Two editors unbanned; Wikicology case enters workshop phase; Gamaliel restricted from Gamergate at his own request

• Recent research: The eight roles of Wikipedians; do edit histories expose social relations among editors?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Full protection of evidence talk page

Miniapolis, is there any particular reason you full-protected Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence? The banner on the evidence page seems to imply that its talk page should be editable in case anyone needs to make a request to edit it ("If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.") kcowolf (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The evidence section of the case closed two days ago. Miniapolis 23:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense that the evidence page gets protected when the phase closes, but does the talk page typically get protected too? If so, the wording on the banner seems a bit confusing. kcowolf (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the talk page, but don't know if your comments will be added to the evidence page and don't understand why you couldn't comment on the workshop page instead. Miniapolis 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was asking because it was pointed out on the Workshop talk page, and it seemed better to ask for a reason than to leave it open to speculation. kcowolf (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, since I'm new at this. All the best, Miniapolis 13:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Corsican Guard

Hello, Miniapolis -- Thanks again for your reminder regarding Corsican Guard. I have finished copy-editing the article and have left two questions on the talk page of the requester, User talk:Alessandro57#Corsican Guard, if you're interested. I have a question for you. In this article, the word "rioni" is used once, and "rione" is used several times. These are Italian words, so I think they should be in italics each time they are used. However, the word "rione" appears with the word "Ponte", as in "rione Ponte", twice, once with "Ponte" linked, once not linked. My question is, should "Ponte" be in italics, also? Right now I left it as rione Ponte, but it seems odd to italicize one part of a municipal region and not the other part. What do you recommend?  – Corinne (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Corinne. I think you're right about rione Ponte; as you probably know by now :-), rioni are Italian administrative divisions. "Ponte" should link to [[Ponte (rione of Rome)]] only once, so that sounds okay. A while ago I was having trouble with whether or not to italicize foreign words, and a requesting editor directed me to what is now MOS:BADITALICS; basically, foreign proper nouns are usually not italicized. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Miniapolis. I understand what a proper noun is; that's like Elm Street. I think the thing that throws me off is that "rione" is not capitalized, so it looks like a regular noun, but when it's before a name, like Regola – rione Regola –  is is a proper noun. I changed them back to regular font.  – Corinne (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood your question, and you're right—other languages don't always capitalize proper nouns and some (like German) capitalize what in English are common nouns. In this case regular font looks better than partial or full italics, but I'm not sure that Ponte needs to be identified as a rione more than once. All the best, Miniapolis 01:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Implementation Notes on Wikicology case

Hi Miniapolis, I think you might need to check the implementation notes as I see 10 votes on almost all of the principles / findings etc but only 9 in most of the notes. Sorry if I am misreading and confused, but if I am understanding correctly the notes seem out of date despite you being the decision page's last editor. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I only updated a couple I saw right away, because I didn't have time to go through the whole list at the time. Whoever closes the case (may be me but if so, not for a few hours) will double-check the numbers. All the best, Miniapolis 13:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Workshop

Hi Miniapolis. Thank you for closing the "Gamaliel and others" case Workshop. I apologize for posting after the announced deadline. I recognize that issues I raised were doubtless already on the minds of arbitrators. I hope it was not too distracting.

I am glad you closed it when you did, because you saved me from making a real nuisance of myself by posting something embarrassingly pedantic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Heading off embarrassment is a good thing :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology and WP:EDR

Hello Miniapolis. Re WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Will a clerk be copying the newly-enacted restrictions into WP:EDR? I see that this is done for a number of the Arb cases. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. Thanks for the reminder about the topic bans; according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Enacting bans and editing restrictions, site bans are not logged at WP:EDR and I didn't log the block in the case enforcement log because the page is courtesy-blanked. All the best, Miniapolis 16:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

• News and notes: Affiliates' nomination of WMF trustees announced; FDC's straight talking to WMF

• Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil

• In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post

• Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one

• Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs

• Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others"

• Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your assistance in improving International Fleet Review 2016 KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 04:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

International Fleet Review 2016

Once again I thank and appreciate your assistance in improving the article: International Fleet Review 2016. I have already mentioned before about the purpose while requesting a copy edit i.e Good Article nomination. Can I nominate it now? KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 05:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm looking at Australian Rupert's review, and reworked the first paragraph to take care of that possible copyvio. Third time's the charm; good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work as an arbitration clerk, especially recently. You've really been holding the fort. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin; I appreciate it, and it's given me valuable practice :-). All the best, Anne Miniapolis 01:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology

I lifted an autoblock on Oluwa2Chainz (talk · contribs). This autoblock was a result of the block you placed on Wikicology (talk · contribs). I know Wikicology is known to have used sockpuppets in the past, but I could find no reason to believe Oluwa2Chainz was anything but an innocent user caught in an autoblock. Of course, if I am mistaken, my apologies. --Yamla (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; since they seem to have hit the ground running the day before Wikicology was blocked (when the writing was already on the wall), I hope you're right :-). All the best, Miniapolis 01:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla. @Miniapolis: can I request for an IP block exemption. This autoblock might come in again. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you were able to request the unblock on your talk page instead of having to use WP:UTRS (as you would to request IPBE), this may not be much of a problem. Because of Wikicology's history of socking and the one-day overlap between your first edit and his block, I've requested extra eyes on WP:AN. All the best, Miniapolis 13:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Miniapolis, as I said at AN, you must have misread the date of Oluwa2Chainz's first edit in 2015. BethNaught (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I misread 2015 as 2016 and have apologized to Oluwa2Chainz (and, of course, granted the IPBE). Miniapolis 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

• News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting

• Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director

• In the media: The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly; Wikipedians' fragility; Street Sharks hoax

• Featured content: Eight articles, three lists and five pictures

• Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian

• Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee

• Recent research: English as Wikipedia's Lingua Franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies

• Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride

• Blog: Freely licensed magic at Eurovision

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Short Goce question

Last week I had requested an FA experienced GOCE editor to do a full edit of Jane Austen in preparation for an FA nom. It was picked up by a new editor at GOCE (with 3-4 weeks experience) without peer review experience, which was fine, though that editor does not appear to be signing in for several days now. I imagine that everyone can wait a few more days though it would be nice to newly re-list it at GOCE in case an experienced editor could pick it up and start editing. Any thoughts to get things moving forward? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your request is four days old, and @Thisisnotcam: accepted it the day after it was made; the request doesn't mention that it's an FAC (we discourage new copyeditors from GANs and FACs, but if they don't know ... ) The failed FAC's issues concerned content more than prose, and Thisisnotcam has received good advice on their talk page from @Stfg: (one of our best). WP:VOLUNTEER, and we usually allow copyeditors a week to get started. If they've made no edits to the article in the next four days or so (FWIW, the upcoming weekend is a US holiday), let me know and I'll poke them. Many younger editors are busy with exams and what-not this time of year. All the best, Miniapolis 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, and giving them a full week sounds like a good idea. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Thanks for saying that :) It's now been a week in which the editor concerned has not edited at all. Also, they have both this and another large article listed as "Working" on the drive page, but they have not edited either article even once. An editor with an edit count of 150 editing an article intended for FAC in a variety of English that is not their own national variety is not ideal. Time to open the request to other editors? --Stfg (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirming this to both editors above, and again thanks to Stfg for looking in. All of us are not even able to ping the account in question for any type of notification. If the article for Jane Austen could simply be relisted in some way, perhaps with greater emphasis on my peer review comments, then possibly things could start to move forward again. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

People come and go; Thisisnotcam apparently didn't take their acceptance of the request seriously enough, but this sometimes happens. FoP, feel free to amend your request (if I were you, I'd add your FAC intentions; copyeditors, especially newbies, aren't mind-readers ) but other requests are considerably older. The peer-review comments I saw mainly concerned content, which is above our pay grade. I'll strike the acceptance if needed (although anyone can do that), but I work on the oldest requests first. You could work on the content issues raised in the FAC discussion while you're waiting for the copyedit. Although it takes patience, keep WP:BITE in mind; for all we know, Thisisnotcam could be a copyeditor by trade and people are sometimes offline for reasons beyond their control. All the best, Miniapolis 17:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and after some reflection it seems best for me to relist it. This time I'll emphasize the article as being in preparation for FA status and to request a possible FA/GA copy editor to consider taking on a full length article as time allows. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)