Peer reviews having minimal or no feedback at all:
December 8Home Alone
If your review is not present in the main unanswered list, add it here.
view listupdate

Welcome to the 42nd edition of my talk page. Please leave me a message below and I will generally reply on your talk page. Although my email address is enabled, I do not check often (so I may be slow in replying to email and very much prefer to have conversations here). I am not around much, so it may take me a while to reply or respond to requests. Please note that while I will do a peer review on just about any article if asked, it will often take me a week or more, and I do not have the time to do copyedits. If you want me to review an article, please open a peer review on it first. Thanks for stopping by and happy editing! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Resources for finding county-level statisticsEdit

Recent user talk page movesEdit

Hello, Ruhrfisch,

I still can't quite figure out what happened with all of your recent moves of archived user talk pages but between yesterday and today I have deleted 88 pages of broken redirects for some nonexistent user account, User:Archive 41, that led to or from your archived talk pages. Since you are an admin, you could have deleted them yourself or at least tagged them for deletion. Check my deletion log for archived user talk page under your username or the Archive 41 username. You moved the same pages 3 or 4 times, I think you should have known by not leaving a redirect in the final move that all of those pages created in earlier, incorrect moves would be turned into broken redirects. User pages that are broken redirects are not handled by a bot but must be deleted by an admin.

I guess I'm just saying, please do not do this again! Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news


  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


I just read a review you performed at Talk:Avery Coonley School#FAC suggestions ("Ruhrfisch comments") almost 10 years ago and wish I would have seen it a long time ago. I do a lot of maintenance on lower class articles to work them in a direction that may allow a better class assessment. I do a lot of work in the appendices sections and noted your comments "Usually Notes are separated from References by a (sub)header of some sort". While we have many ways to present an article I have noted some have started using full sections for those related to "References". A "Bibliography" section or sub-section has been used within the "References" section instead of "Works cited" or "References cited" and I have been making changes per MOS:NOTES. It is a small change but with valid reasoning that is largely unopposed.
Anyway, I enjoyed reading your detailed suggestions and will dissect some of it for future use. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]


  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)