Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Randykitty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Dear Randykitty, thanks for the welcome. I think I am not doing a great job. I am trying to contribute to WP (I always donate, by not I want to write something) but with no success.
First I update a page with new information all with references and my update was entirely removed after 7 hours. So, I spend 1-2 hours to make my first text (a very small one, only with a minor update) and the text was entirely undone. Now I work a entire page from a scientist in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I include 20 references and several links to magazine papers and youtube videos where the scientist was interviewed, but the page was blocked. They say some problem with youtube video, then I removed all youtube link and is still blocked. Very disappointing. Can you help me? I don´t use any kind of copied material whatsoever. I used a lot of external links to prove that this person deserves a WP page, I don´t understand what happened. Best regards, Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHMinervino (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm sorry that your experience here has been less than positive. However, content creation is very difficult and creating new articles (especially biographies) is one of the hardest things to do. I looked at your history, but I only see one single edit to the MDPI article (I don't see anything about the Portuguese scientist) and that edit was reverted because it was promotional. It is very important to be neutral when adding stuff to articles, especially articles like the one on MDPI which has a long and tortuous history of promotional editing. YouTube links in general are almost never acceptable sources for anything (see WP:RS to see what constitutes a good "reliable source"). In all, I recommend that you look around at edits that people who have been around longer make and try to understand why they do things. Start with very small, straightforward edits, such as streamlining sentences, correcting typos, and such. Then, once you get a better feel for how things are done here, slowly start creating text. Don't worry if you get reverted, it happens all the time. If it's unclear, don't hesitate to contact the reverting editor and ask them to explain why they thought your edits were not acceptable. If you disagree with their reasoning, don't edit war but go to the talk page and try to discuss the issue and get a consensus. Hope this helps, don't give up, once you're past the "novice stage", editing WP can be very rewarding! --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, You deleted a number of the indices I listed on the History of Education Quarterly page. The reference for these is provided in the footnote for the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals. This footnote appears just before the list of indices. I added the new indices because I'm a member of the History of Education Society, and at our last meeting the representative from Cambridge University Press reported that the History of Education Quarterly is now indexed by more indices than previously. I'm going to undo your deletion. If you oppose this for some reason, please provide the rationale, thanks! Kfhtoll (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kfhtoll, what I did is standard procedure. EBSCO databases do not contribute to the notability of an article as they are not very selective (beyond subject matter). Therefore we indicate that a journal is indexed by EBSCO databases, but don't list every single of these minor databases themselves. Obviously I oppose your re-establishing this, otherwise I wouldn't have removed this stuff to start with... --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- PS: Kfhtoll, please read WP:COI and also WP:BOLD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Adding three or four indices to an existing list does not constitute hyping or promoting the journal. I've only updated existing information. This is good-faith editing. By the way, you'll notice I did not revert your usage editing, which improved the wording in the first paragraph. Thanks, Kfhtoll (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were not editing in good faith. However, you indicated some connection to this journal in your above message, so I thought it would be good if you were aware of WPs COI policy. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you think I could restart the WikiFun contest?
E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I have no idea what "WikiFun" is... --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Reed zees! ”zees”E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Randykitty,
Regarding article Vadose Zone Journal; I transferred all content (except the AfC banner) from the AfC-draft to the redirect-page (ie. Vadose Zone Journal @ that time before its page creation). I did so because, as the redirect page already existed, it was impossible for the AFCH script to overwrite it. This is the same way I followed in previous articles which I created via AfC process, on pre-existing redirect pages.
As you've mentioned as: ′...please don't do this again this way...′, would you suggest a proper way of doing it?
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 09:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- The way you did it creates a lot of work, as a histmerge includes multiple moves/deletions/undeletions in order to preserve the edit history. The proper way of doing is to tag the redirect for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G6. Usually, speedy deletion requests are fulfilled quite rapidly and after that you can simply move the draft using the script as usual. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはRandykittyたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, and my very best wishes to you, too. --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 |
Bye-Bye |
| I think I’m going to leave Wikipedia. I’ll just take care of some unfinished business, and then, if I still feel like it, leave Wikipedia. I’m going to create my own wiki/forum with MediaWiki, so if I’ve left, you can still contact me there (on MediaWiki). This is one of the saddest things I’ve done, other than read this. I might send the link when I’m done. I’ll still be on Wikipedia while developing it though! E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC) |
- I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your revert and edit summary on the peer review article, I added that template (which I did not create, or know existed before today, by the way) because it linked to the article but wasn't displayed there. I've been doing that with different templates, spread across different subjects. It was not a judgment of what peer review is or is supposed to be, but a link that I saw was missing.
You've got a problem, but it's not me. Best of luck to you. - DoubleCross (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Guess the real culprit is the one who added "peer review" to that template. Wish you luck, too. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If otherwise G4'able versions are persistently recreated, the page could be protected until a non-G4-able version is created in draft space or something. Otherwise, I don't see any indications there are BLP problems or copyright problems or anything, so whether or not the history is deleted is irrelevant. WilyD 08:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
Arbitration
- 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 thanreasonably 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.
- 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
Miscellaneous
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
You undid the edit to JAMA (journal) that indicated the journal is delayed free access as "not an improvement."
Open Access at scholarly journals is not just free public access. It is free public access with additional granting of additional rights to reuse and distribute the research, covered by author fees.
JAMA (journal) has no Open Access provision and you will not find that language anywhere in its policy statements or instructions. It does not accept author fees to cover free access and does not permit reuse and unrestricted distribution.
Please restore the edit!
216.4.62.34 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're wrong on many counts. "Open access" is generally interpreted as "access without a paywall". JAMA has an option for authors to pay for such open access and hence is a hybrid OA journal. All other articles become freely available after 18 months, so it is also a delayed OA journal. That you personally prefer another definition of OA is irrelevant, what I just described for JAMA is used in hundreds of journal articles. If you want to change that, open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, but I don't think you'll have much chance to change the current consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- PS: this is not WP specific. The Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy is published under a publisher-specific license, not CC, but still listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- The statement that "JAMA has an option for authors to pay for such open access" is incorrect. It is correct for all 12 other JAMA Network journals but you will find no mention of open access at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors (compare that page's "public access" section to the dual "public access" and "open access" section at eg https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/pages/instructions-for-authors, ). It is not a personal preference - it is a publisher definition and policy that should be accurately reflected in the journal page. If DOAJ is the standard you cite for permitting a broader definition of OA, you'll find no mention of JAMA (journal) or its article there - it is not indexed there for the reason that it is not an OA journal. Insisting otherwise as a moderator does not make it true, and bakes an inaccuracy important to the scientific community into the page. 2 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.62.34 (talk)
- Looks like you're right that there is no hybrid option. The article currently correctly states that this is a delayed OA journal, with access after 6 months. DOAJ only includes full OA journals (including those with a publisher-specific license), not hybrid or delayed OA journals. I only mentioned the Corvinus Journal to show that DOAJ considers it an OA journal, despite it not being CC-licensed, so that is not a requirement to be considered OA. I think we have reached the point where further discussion is fruitless and if you still don't agree, start a request for a third opinion or a request for comment on the article talk page (not here). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
..hello thanks for welcoming me i'm starting with the creation of an article in wikipedia but I had trouble uploading the image for the article--Vergara01 (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am editing the page on Hollis Cline and you added an 'Advert' tag. I want to correct the problem but I'm not sure if its because I added a bunch of internal links to other Wiki sites or external links in the External Links section. For the latter, I created the external links section and added the links, exactly as seen in other pages. Please advise. thanks, MagicslimMagicslim (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NPOV. Articles need to be written in an encylopedic manner using neutral language and supported by independent references. Creating a new article, especially a bio of a scientist (because there often are not much sources around for these people), is one of the hardest things to do here on WP. Don't worry too much about the tag. It serves to alert editors that the article needs some work. The problems are not unsurmountable (otherwise I'd have proposed the article for speedy deletion as spam). In the present case, the article could benefit from some sources that are independent of the subject (i.e., not her own articles or press releases from her own employers). Some details need to be addressed. For example, we refer to the subject of a bio as "Doe", not "Jane Doe" or "Dr. Jane Doe" or "Dr. Doe". Also, Loop may be an acceptable source for Cline being on the board of a Frontiers journal, but not for much else (the reason being that most info on Loop is user-provided, see WP:RS). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You did not give me time to post the source. Should I DRV for Allow recreation or do you want to reopen the discussion? As per WP:VG/RS this need more time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources list this source Softpedia as "Situationally reliable - Everything published with editorial oversight (i.e. with a staff name attached) should be treated as reliable, but everything else on the site should be considered self-published. Also, reviews should not be used as a source of notability because some of them are done upon request" per this discussion. This source Softpedia is reviewed by Sorin Cirneala this source passes WP:VG/RS and give the subject in detailed coverage which is reliable and significant. I was waiting until other editors participated before I posted this source which overrides the rationale for deletion. Valoem talk contrib 17:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, those cats :-) I sometimes have them using my keyboard, too... Anyway, the AfD ran its allotted 7 days and the discussion seemed to be going more or less in circles. You were the only one !voting "keep" and your arguments failed to sway the other participants. (And may I ask you to cut down on those walls of text, neither the closer nor the other participants really need that level of detail). There is therefore a clear consensus to delete, as far as I can see. If I understand correctly what you write above, Softpedia does not contribute to notability, so I don't really see how the above is supposed to change the debate's outcome. Relisting seems a waste of time to me. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Softpedia does pass and contributes to notability. It was the exact source they were looking for, a source listed from VGRS which give in detailed significant coverage, I posted a link to the discussion where it was concluded that an article subjected to editorial review from Softpedia passes WP:VG/RS. This article I linked with reviewed by Sorin Cirneala an editor with documented oversight to articles written. Unfortunately, there is a general bias on Wikipedia toward the last comment left, which I was saving for the end. A good example of this occurring was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohave Crossing, Arizona here where Onel included policy based rationale for keeping. That area did pass WP:GEO. Of course this does not apply here, but if AfD is not a vote this source should close the loop. Another option is you could allow me to recreate the article with that source included. Valoem talk contrib 17:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- That discussion explicitly says that those Softpedia reviews should not be taken to contribute to notability, hence I fail to see how that reference would justify recreation of the article. You're free to take this to DRV, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Eur J Neurol 2014 cover.gif. 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) 18:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Eur J Neurol 2014 cover.gif. 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) 03:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my inclusion for medical journals as needing an article first. I understand that mentality and normally I have no issues on disambig pages but list pages to me seem in need of red-links. You are experienced so I won't run down the list of benefits for redlinks but will emphasize one point. Lists should be complete and should help users. I only add these redlinks when I am researching other topics and am looking for something e.g. a medical journal, and struggle finding any mention on wikipedia; Understandable for a small, notability in question, type subject, but not the one in question now. If I had the information I would add the article rather than argue a point but I do feel strongly, maybe a larger discussion needs to be had concerning lists as they are not disambig. Anyway pardon my meandering thoughts.
- Red links have advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, they stimulate creation of necessary articles. However, in journal lists, things are a bit more complicated (this is not the only journal list where only blue-links are included). Without any other info than what is given in that list, we have no idea whether the journal is notable or not. Worse, just from the title it's impossible to see whether this is perhaps a fake journal (see predatory publishing). The last thing we want is include one of those and give WP readers the impression that the journal is legit. By including only blue-linked journals, this problem is avoided. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Notability won't be an issue and ... I am tempted to just add it, because the length of time discussing will be more more than the time required to add a small article; However, the major discussion is still there. If the list was worded as List of Journals with pages -- "articles" but it is and as a list, It is just as bad being incomplete as having incorrect entries. Either way a statement about the validity or reality of said journal is being propagated by us. My area of expertise is not journal so I really don't want to add an article quickly as, that is not what I do. Cheers. - speednat (talk)
- Actually, if a journal is notable (see WP:NJournals, then it is fairly easy to write a neutral article on it, following our journal article writing guide. I tried to see whether The Medical News meets our inclusion criteria, but the title is so general that I cannot easily find its website. Do you have a link? --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Notability won't be an issue and ... I am tempted to just add it, because the length of time discussing will be more more than the time required to add a small article; However, the major discussion is still there. If the list was worded as List of Journals with pages -- "articles" but it is and as a list, It is just as bad being incomplete as having incorrect entries. Either way a statement about the validity or reality of said journal is being propagated by us. My area of expertise is not journal so I really don't want to add an article quickly as, that is not what I do. Cheers. - speednat (talk)
Hi. I didn't spot it until now, but I reverted your edit in May 2018 where you redirected Prix Jules Janssen to Société astronomique de France with the edit summary "non-notable award". I am a bit shocked at this, as there is a clear claim of notability at the start of the article, and many of the laureates have articles. What is the problem with a list article like this? I really don't get why anyone would want to redirect that sort of content and not even merge it to the article you directed it to? What gives? (I've read your editing philosophy on your user page, and I still don't get it.) Carcharoth (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- A "claim of notability" applies when one proposes an article for speedy deletion as an A7 (lack of notability), not if you make a redirect. We have a lot of articles on awards that are absolutely not notable. Every society, scientific or not, large or small or even tiny, has at least one award. At best, if the society is notable, they can be mentioned in that article. Including a list of awardees, even if most of them are notable in themselves (but for other things than the award) is rarely justified. Getting the award is rarely covered by others than the society and sometimes also the institution or company where the awardee works. Such a list belongs on the society's own website, not here. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty
I didn't post an article I just updated the facts on the page and replaced an old, out of date cover. There is no conflict of interest, and no one else will edit the page using my username. Thanks for your understanding. Neil Burling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.197.46 (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please log in to your account next time you edit WP, it took me a moment before I figured out what you were talking about... Your username, Nburlingwiley suggests that you work for Wiley. The fact that you could upload a copyrighted cover image on Commons and release it under CC also suggests that. That's a clear COI. As long as you edit neutrally (following the instructions in our journal writing guide), that's not a problem, but you should read WP:COI and WP:PAID. --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty, the article "Carsten Isensee" has just been deleted. He is the new CEO of SEAT. We have not intended to make an advertising or promotional article, simply give information about this person and his responsibility in the most important automobile manufacturing company in Spain. A friend, the editor "Koratai" asked me for help because she had created an incomplete draft, without references or categories. All the CEOs of the big companies are on Wikipedia and we want to write an informative and encyclopedic article with more information and references, but we need time to ask for the collaboration of more editors or seek help in the Wikiproject Biographies. We will write new text and look for more information in the media. And we will try that the writing has an encyclopedic style and that is not considered promotional. After all it is a manager, we do not intend to write an ad to sell a car. Thanks --Pesca59 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Promotional" does not necessarily imply any pecuniary interest. Please see WP:NPOV. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Randikitty, following your instructions I have rewritten the article on Carsten Isensee trying to have a neutral point of view. I have read the Wikipedia rules: NPOV, I have chosen other references different from the previous article and that are independent of the SEAT company, I have also chosen references that show a critical sense about the change of CEO (because really the previous president Luca de Meo has left Seat to go to Renault). I have also gathered all the information in a single paragraph to be encyclopedic in style.
Sorry to be so tedious, please, can you check it? It´s in my sandbox.
Thanks a lot --Pesca59 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm currently quite busy in RL, so the best thing to do is move it to draft space and submit it for review. --Randykitty (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty
She won the best new Iranian female in daf BAMA MUSIC AWARDS 2016 as here. Is that make her notable for WP according to WP:MUSICBIO#8?Reza Amper (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, given that there is no WP article for those awards and also the large number of awards that they apparently give each year for very narrow categories (like "best new Iranian female"), my guess is hat this does not contribute much (if anything) to her notability. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
hard for me to understand why providing a more detailed description is a problem or it is undesirable for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okami* (talk • contribs)
- It's unnecessary at best and misleading at worst. Unnecessary: What among the subjects you list is not contained in "the natural sciences, including physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, and biology"? Misleading: If someone wants to publish an article on a topic that you don't list (but that is included in "the natural sciences, including physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, and biology") they might conclude that this journal is not for them.
- In addition, you don't give a source for this list of topics. I don't see this list on the journal's own website, either. See WP:RS. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- the list is here: https://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okami* (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please read WP:SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK - thank you. I now understand why the list needs to be removed.
- What about the other info I added? I thought it was of interest for the readers describing that the editorial board is comprised by 13 different editorial teams. It helps understanding how the journal works, and how it differs from many other scientific journals, being some sort of a 'mega-journal' divided into 13 different topics, almost looking like a series of different 'sub-journals'. The first time I read the wiki article, trying to get info about this journal, it was not clear. After some reading online, I thought it would be of interest to highlight this journal peculiarity on the wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okami* (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Our journal writing guide shows what we usually include in articles on academic journals. As a rule, we only include editors-in-chief. This is a bit of a strange case, let me think about it. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- All right, thanks for your help understanding how wikipedia works with respect to scientific journal descriptions. From your link: Anyone who truly cares about that can consult the journal's website. This seems like a good rule of thumb for this case. If someone want to better understand the editorial work and the review process, they can consult Nat Comm website. --Okami* —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Concerning the editorial team, a summary of the editorial process could be adequate. This could be as simple as "So and so are/is the lead editor/managing editor/editor in chief, supported by 13 different editorial teams covering individual topics" or whatever is accurate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
Arbitration
- 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.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Randykitty,
- Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
- Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
- Discussions and Resources
- There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
- A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
- A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
- A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
- Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
Technical news
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
Technical news
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Miscellaneous
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ringgold logo.gif. 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) 02:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Randykitty;
I kindly to ask you an opinion about an article I am trying to publish in Wikipedia. The article is about an academic journal. I am encountering difficulties as it has been rejected twice, already. Probably the last rejection is perfectly justified but still I'd like to try to re-submit, if possible. My article draft is quite similar to this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_Geometricorum, and I think I am providing the adequate number of independent sources. The Journal under question is not a very popular one, but it could be considered the European equivalent to the Forum Geometricorum. Many Wikipedia Geometry articles are citing papers from this journal and renowned Geometers have published there. Would you mind to have a look and give me a help? This is my article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Journal_of_Geometry Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Please restore this article you deleted to my sandbox. Trackinfo (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ringgold logo.gif. 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. Ntx61 (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
Technical news
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Randy - is there a policy or guideline that says we can't use the template sources-talk vs reflist-talk? The reason I ask is that the former is much neater and easier for cell phone users whereas the latter adds length to the discussion with no real benefit. Just wondering. Atsme Talk 📧 18:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, frankly, I have no idea but I'd be surprised if there were. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was told (please see below) that you were the administrator who closed the discussion to delete Marisa Petroro's wiki page. Why was it deleted? I am a friend helping Marisa to get it restored back. The information was correct from the last time she checked which was sometime last year.
Also, I'm not very wiki savvy. Not sure how this all works. It's very confusing communicating on this site, so please bare with me.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowpr (talk • contribs)
- Hi, I see from previous messages that you already got a link to the deletion discussion for this article. I looked at the article again just now and must say that if it had not been deleted after that discussion, I would have deleted it as unduly promotional (see WP:CSD#G11). From the deleted article (and the different language versions), it appears to me that she does not meet our inclusion criteria (see WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR). I am sorry that this all seems rather daunting, but creation of new articles is one of the harder things to do here. In addition, if you're a friend of Petroro, it will be difficult for you to maintain a neutral point of view and, in addition, you would appear to have a conflict of interest. I hope this explains things a bit and encourage you to read the policies and guidelines that I have linked to in this response. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 18. —Cryptic 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Randykitty Ok, I understand. Before seeing your comment here, I posted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 18 Hopefully, someone will be able to restore her page. Take care.Nowprr (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Administrator changes
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
Technical news
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It is not for you to delete the additions made to the Commentarii article by another user. It is obvious that this user put a great deal of effort into his edit, and must have looked at google scholar citations to determine the most cited articles. If you were to do a google scholar search yourself (or if you had - you clearly don't, otherwise you would know how important these papers were in the development of their respective subfields - knowledge of research level mathematics), you would have not undone this valuable edit. Actions like these will deter more knowledgeable users to contribute to Wikipedia; the edit was clearly in good faith and the pros of keeping the edit clearly outweigh the cons (you could have simply retitled the section). Such lists are clearly accepted by Wikipedia, see e.g. Rahul Pandharipande. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Thaddeus Fan 93 (talk • contribs)
- Regarding the Pandharipande article, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The section you are complaining about has been unsourced for many years. Nobody said that it was added in bad faith, but unsourced stuff gets deleted all the time. This particular section was tagged for sources for 8 years, nobody added sources, so I deleted it. If you have reliable sources for the 3-5 most important articles published b y this journal, add them and restore the section. If you don't have independent sources, then the section remains out. As an aside, WP:Vandalism is something else than an edit removing unsourced stuff. Please read WP:NPA. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Re: 02:25, 27 March 2020 Randykitty talk contribs deleted page Talk:Daniel Cardoso (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) and Re: 02:24, 27 March 2020 Randykitty talk contribs deleted page Daniel Cardoso (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
Can this page be recovered or at least revised in order to meet Wikipedia's standards? A good bunch of artists and bands wiki-pages link to this page. DamnApples (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, it can't. This was promotional spam from the very first version. If this person really is notable in the WP sense, it is better to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You deleted this article last year. Since then we have new information that surfaced to prove that the article should have remained. Could you please undelete this article to allow resubmission of new citations to prove that the article deserved to be kept.. Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LennyBernstein (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LennyBernstein (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Sir
I have created many time Wikipedia page and accordingly I have remove the promotional content and given independent sources. But I do not know why page is deleting. Why this is in speedy deletion? Please help. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuneebM.Mushtaq (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Why was my page deleted if I may ask. A lot of people whether well known of famous have bios. And although I’m not famous or that well known. I wrote a bio on myself which wasn’t promoting anything as I don’t not have anyone else to write me bio. And I checked J.K Rowling’s Bio it isn’t promoting anything and it actually is very important because I edited an article a while back on Asexuality and it would be great to have a Wikipedia page to let people to know who I am and my works. Jayjaythebacteria (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry about that, but as indicated in the message that I left on your talk page, your draft was way too promotional, also containing links to your own website. Additional problems are a lack of independent reliable sources. Generally, if you're as notable as J.K. Rowling, then sooner rather than later somebody will come along and create an article on you. I strongly recommend that you read some of the guidelines and policies that are linked in the welcome template on top of your talk page. Hope this explains/helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You closed the deletion discussion on Daniel Vladař. The page was deleted for failing WP:NHOCKEY; he now passes NHOCKEY as he has made his NHL debut Can you please restore the page? Joeykai (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- This was AfD'ed twice and both times unanimously deleted. There were hardly any sources in the article and all you now add is a tweet, which does not really seems enough to build an article upon. Notability does not mean that we must have an article, an entry in an appropriate list article may work, too. If the people over at WP:DRV think this is sufficient to overturn the AfD closure, that's fine with me. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Randy,
You concluded delete on a page I created three years ago. I'd like to rework it as more viable referencing have surfaced and the organizations reach has increased in the last three years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnvna (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, that article was deleted after a deletion discussion, where (in addition) it was said that the article was too promotional and a new start, using a neutral point of view was preferable. It might therefore be better to start from scratch and create a new draft. --Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect JetRaider. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 12#JetRaider until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
- Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Randy, what dou you think about this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.169.113 (talk • contribs)
- I can live with it. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Review 2020 cover.webp. 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) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Just an FYI, Wallyfromdilbert is the same disruptive edits as Wallyfromdilbert. I had just posted this on AIV. – VillainAndri08 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
