Open main menu

User talk:Srich32977


Contents

Thank you ...Edit

 

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

... and in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

... and in in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

... and in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

... and in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

... and in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

... and in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

... and in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

... and in October! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

... and in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on EditEdit

I apologize for my actions of bad faith. Thank you for your insight (AzN Egoist) 13:22, 31 October 2018 (CST)

New Skylab controversy RfC proposalEdit

Hi! I have drafted another RfC at Talk:Skylab_controversy#New_RfC_proposal. Please comment on how best to get appropriate input from the Wikipedia editor community. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • 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.

  Obituaries


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

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018Edit

Hello Srich32977,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

math errorEdit

One of your scripts produces math errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sphere&diff=874493812&oldid=872808529 I fixed it. --Boehm (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Boehm: Thanks. I'm about done with math related vital articles, but I'll keep an eye out for the <math></math> Wiki markup. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:NUMRANGEEdit

Regarding some details of your recent edit at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: please note the advice at MOS:NUMRANGE where full ranges are recommended. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. However the MOS for citations allows for Chicago Manual of Style page ranges (e.g. 2 digits). My effort produced a uniform/consistent presentation of the page ranges. (It's now late, so I can't get the particular MOS for CMS citations. Perhaps tomorrow.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
You should not be changing page ranges from the full to the abbreviated form. Nor should you be taking hyphens out of ISBN numbers. Be very careful with ranges like 2315–S24, which are likely to mean a main article at some range, plus supplementary pages. (These would be better as NNN–NNN, SNN–SNN.) Your changes at Maize were in no way an improvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
So now, Peter, with your revert, you have WP:ALLCAPS, a mix of spaced and unspaced emdashes, all sorts of hyphenations in the ISBNS (which don't matter), a mix of page range presentations, and a mix of date formats for the books. You couldn't fix the "wrong" edits, but had to (re-)create inconsistent formats and MOS variations for the readers. Happy New Year. – S. Rich (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please stop changing page ranges from the full to the abbreviated form and removing hyphens from ISBNs. Kanguole 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Why? – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

To my critics — WP:CITEVAR has a key word which they miss: established. When citations in an article vary between full and partial number ranges or between hypenated and unhyphenated ISBNs, there is no "established" style. My gnomish efforts are to produce consistency, e.g., to establish one particular style within articles. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I came here in response to this edit, which took an article that already formatted page ranges and ISBNs consistently, and changed them to your preferred format, contrary to CITEVAR. Please stop doing that. Kanguole 01:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
So, between you and I, we have improved the article. E.g., my 1 and your 7 edits produced this version. I used the citation bot, AutoEd, and my eyeballs. Essentially you now have ISBNs with hyphens. But so what? When you click the ISBNs and go to Book sources you end up with links to Amazon.com, WorldCat, etc. which present ISBNs without hyphens. Amazon and WorldCat have programs with automatically convert ALL the ISBNs to unhyphenated versions; whereas, WP is behind the times and relies on WP:GNOMEs like me to do the work. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

2019Edit

 


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your project help last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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 MediaWiki.org.
  • 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.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • 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) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank YouEdit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I really appreciate the good links for newcomers you gave me a several months ago. It really has helped me get started on Wikipedia. HAL333 16:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing "Maize"Edit

In your recent edit of the 'Maize' article, you converted the second page numbers to only include the last two digits (like 1901-1902 --> 1901-02), and you removed the dashes in ISBNs. Is there a Wik policy for these changes? It seems to me that the former can sometimes be unclear and that the latter goes against the formatting that books use. Unless there is a Wik policy for these changes, I would be against them. Kdammers (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

WP allows any widely accepted citation style. WP:CITEVAR says when a particular style is established editors should stick with the style. My gnomish project is to get all vital articles into one style. Hence I'll go with the Chicago Manual of Style when that looks like the easy way. (E.g., there are fewer conversions to get all in compliance.) Regarding isbns, the hyphens and spaces don't matter -- the wikitext reader takes you to Book Sources with or without them. Once you get to Special:BookSources the links to WorldCat (OCLC), Amazon books, Google, etc. use unhyphenated isbns. Since WP prefers isbn-13, adding/leaving a hyphen in the isbn-13s allows editors to see right away that 13 is being used. If the citation style is already established with hyphens in all of the ISBNs, I leave it alone. But when using the Citation Bot, I find conversions to both hyphenated and unhyphenated isbns, so I try to use the bot first and then go from there. (BTW, page ranges use endashes, and ISBNs use hyphens. For more see MOS:DASH.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Srich32977, your edits are introducing MANY errors into these articles. Please fix your script. This edit removed valid page numbers (pages=29) and changed "p. 492–3" to "pp. 492–03". Also, removing full page ranges is contrary to MOS:NUMRANGE, so you should have a very good reason for doing it. Imposing a new CITEVAR by changing all of these non-ambiguous page ranges to ambiguous and erroneous page ranges is not a very good reason. Please reconsider these edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You are also removing spaces between initials, contrary to MOS:INITIALS (in many articles), removing meaningful hyphens from ISBNs, introducing incorrect state abbreviations (CT) and breaking page ranges (pages=95567), and breaking citation parameters. Some of your edits are productive, like fixing year ranges per MOS, but on the whole, you should get consensus to make these significant changes to the citation style that are contrary to MOS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Reply: Hyphens in ISBNs are not meaningful - Please see my comment above about Book source. NUMRANGE is "should" guidance, and CITEVAR says don't vary from established citation styles -- my changes have corrected errors in order to establish a consistent WP:CITESTYLE within and throughout each article. So, now, in Fungus, your indiscriminate use of roll-back has created "pages=980–6" and "pages=850-9" alongside "pages=233-248" etc., "wind - species" (note the hyphen instead of dash), , "chapter=14—Fungi", etc.. MOS:INITIALS says "Use initials in a personal name only if the name is commonly written that way." But in citations we often see initials in the author citations. In fact, they often don't have spaces or full points (especially in science journal cites). EACH of my gnomish edits has been done to establish a consistent style within the particular articles. IF you see particular edits that need correcting, then do so, but please look at WP:ROLLBACKUSE and avoid the bot for "reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I inspected many of your edits and reverted (I do not use rollback) only the ones that had too many errors to be acceptable. I fixed your errors in a couple of articles, but it is not my job to clean up after you; you are responsible for your own edits. Please leave full page ranges in place where they are present. If you choose to apply a more consistent citation style to these articles (I note that you have left initials with spaces between them in some articles but not in others, so I dispute your claim of applying a consistent style to all of these articles), please use a style that adheres to MOS's guidance, including that on initials and page ranges. The guidance exists for good reasons: in this case to reduce ambiguity in page ranges and to preserve consistency in the display of names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You didn't "rollback" the edits as Rollback allows for multiple page edit reverts. You simply went back to the version you preferred, even if that version had errors. Yes, I did leave some spaces in the initials -- but those were inadvertent errors. You could have corrected them. But as I point out, your "rollbacks" restored errors I had corrected. Again, please be particular with your copyedits. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, seconded, you're introducing a variety of errors with your "fixes", as well as making a multitude of changes invisible to readers. I'm not sure I see the point, honestly. Also it feels as if you're following me around, I do hope you wouldn't dream of doing such a thing but it sure feels like it right now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
MUCH better, a clear improvement to the article with no errors that I can see. I'm not sure why you removed "et al." in this one; it can be a clue that something is wrong and needs fixing. This one is also an improvement; looking for explicit "et al." can lead to even more improvements. Well done. Good work. Yes. Thank you for incorporating our constructive feedback into your editing. Wikipedia will be better for it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

  Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You're still removing spaces from between initials, even though you've been asked not to do this. Please do not continue with a sequence of edits when you have been asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@DrKay: - – — -- I certainly am following the MOS in every respect. (Please do not rely just on the complaints you see above. While some of the complaints were WP:OWNBEHAVIOR-driven, I've carefully considered each of them.) AGF, I've tried to answer the complaints. Regarding your concerns: 1. I've been putting endashes in the citation page ranges per MOS:ENTO. 2. When the ISBNs presented have a mix of spaces and/or hyphens (such as ISBN 978-0-226-28705-8, 978-0226287058, 9780226287058), I try to present one scheme that is uniform/consistent throughout the article. (This is IAW WP:CITEVAR.) 3. When the references use initials I seek to unify their presentations within the references. Examples: todays' FA Thomasomys ucucha omits spaces in the referenced authors; and an upcoming TFA Imperator torosus has refs which omit the full stops (periods) in the first name initials in the references. (It would seem that these FAs violate MOS:INITIALS, expect that initials used in references are names not "commonly written that way".) My goal is to edit the WP:VA3 listed IAW [see WP:G] the MOS and then endeavor to modify the MOS guidance – via discussion. E.g., I hope to clarify that INITIALS and DASHES apply to article text and less so to referencing. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Srich32977".