I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Douglas, Washington. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a little more 'corporate-speak' than I'd really like, but I'm glad it gets the meaning across. BTW I removed the 'verification needed' tag on the book citation because the full citation of the book was given. A preview is also available on Google Books. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@122.108.141.214: It's no problem! Thanks for letting me know, I put the tag up because I think I found the same Google Books preview but could not view page 221 that's cited. – The Grid (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent addition to 2017 World Rowing Championships looks as if it has been copied from 2018 World Rowing Championships, but there is no sign of any attribution. May I remind you of the copyright aspects of copying within Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thank you for the message. Does my edit provide sufficient attribution? – The Grid (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought that would do. There is also {{copied}} which can be used, but as it is unlikely in this case that the source article would be deleted while the destination article exists there is probably no need to use that method too. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Douglas, Washington, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chetsford (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

-_-
DoctorSpeed^{Want to talk?}

Hi The Grid, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you! – The Grid (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grid,

Below is the edit you provided on my page Catalytic Products International. I wanted to assure you I was not avoiding improving the draft after it was declined. I made the edits that were requested and felt it was ready for others to review. I submitted for edit already but wanted to get others to review which is how we used to do this.

The person who initially reviewed, seemed very nice but I felt was not clear on some details regarding notability. I was just trying to get another set of eyes on the doc but absolutely not trying to circumvent the review process. Apologies if that is how it appeared. How do i get someone new to review?

"This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Grid (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 25 February 2019 (The Grid moved page Catalytic products international to Draft:Catalytic products international: Purposely avoiding improving Draft:Catalytic Products International after its AfC submission was declined). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision."

Thanks,

Bctwriter (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for assuming the wrong intentions, Bctwriter. When a submission gets declined, it's simply declining the latest edit of the draft at the time. You can always resubmit another attempt for the article on the same article page. – The Grid (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I was not offended. I have resubmitted and hope for more feedback soon. Thanks Bctwriter (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Rfc. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS Necrothesp Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman Interface administrator changes Pharos

Bureaucrat changes Primefac CheckUser changes Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, The Grid. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Road Rangers Service Patrol".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello The Grid Cappuccino joyisa (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. How do we improve this section? people keep revising it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsultan1984 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rsultan1984: The article's talk page would be the starting place. – The Grid (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:10 000Hz Legend.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Talkie Walkie.jpg. 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) 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings User:The Grid. I see that you made extensive edits on the American Society of Civil Engineers article. Eight edits with some adds and deletions. In one of your edits, you added "over-quotation" and "technical" tags (within "multiple issues" to the article. Can you elaborate on your comments? As I mentioned in my talk page comment, I am trying to parallel track the ASCE material to the IEEE and ASME articles

Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hiya @Risk Engineer:! It's been a while since editing the article and I thank you for asking about my edits.

• I was a bit confused with how the page had direct quotes that were 2+ sentences and didn't really integrate into the article. The ellipsis from the quotes didn't seem necessary in how material was quoted, MOS:ELLIPSIS mentions the usage to be for inbetween or between breaks in quotes. I saw them at the front and back of the quotes so it makes the article flow rather oddly when reading the history of ASCE. This is where the overquotation tags came into play initially as my first edit and then I decided to edit the pages as I'm also an active ASCE member. I know it's a lot of edits altogether but I tried my best to summarize each edit that was done.
• I removed the Natural Wonders of the Modern World as it didn't really explain much. It's a list that ASCE made in 1994. It's referenced in Wonders of the World word-for-word. Perhaps if other lists that ASCE created that seem notable then a section can be mentioned. Perhaps, something similar to mentioning the state Report Cards?
• Infoboxes are for at a glance information. Don't need to fully explain what a value explicitly means - it's for when the values are described in the article to potentially fully explain the numerical figures or even present it as a hatnote.
• MOS:CREDENTIAL is where we shouldn't state people's credentials such as Dr., P.E., F.E., or the related ASCE designations such as M.ASCE, F.ASCE, Dist.M.ASCE, etc. - we can assume it's a educational background without the titles and very, very few would even know the ASCE designation. I've learned this myself with editing some articles.
• Provided a direct first reference to Form 990 for the sources from the IRS. It just made sense as they host a copy on their own website.
• The Advocacy is where I should have pushed the technical tag down to instead of the article as a whole. There's a lot of bullet points but a lot of them are just one words. I'm really concerned on how the section fits overall.
• A lot of my editing is copyediting. Just cleanup to present the article without it presenting huge section titles.

I think that might be a bit of information and I'm hoping it's not something to take too critically. – The Grid (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your detailed and constructive assessment of the article. I would like to build upon your outline above and propose the following:(I listed your comment first with my response below it.)

Address issue with the use of direct quotes that were 2+ sentences and didn't really integrate into the article.

I will go thru and review the article on this basis. You may have addressed these issues but I will review it one more time.

Natural Wonders of the Modern World: Perhaps if other lists that ASCE created that seem notable then a section can be mentioned. Perhaps, something similar to mentioning the state Report Cards?

Great suggestion, I'll look into that...

MOS:CREDENTIAL your comment noted that is the case "where we shouldn't state people's credentials such as Dr., P.E., F.E., or the related ASCE designations such as M.ASCE, F.ASCE, Dist.M.ASCE, etc. - we can assume it's an educational background without the titles and very, very few would even know the ASCE designation.

I now understand the argument with respect to the related ASCE designations. Doing some research into the medical articles and reading the MOS, I now concur with your approach. Similar to the first, I will reread the article using this revised basis.

Advocacy is where I should have pushed the technical tag down to instead of the article as a whole. There's a lot of bullet points but a lot of them are just one words. I'm really concerned on how the section fits overall.

I now understand the argument and would propose to move the technical tag down to this section as well as copy edit to address the issue.

After this, I would propose another review with you to see if it's appropriate to remove the article tag.

Many thanks ... --Risk Engineer (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Risk Engineer, thanks for the response back. I look forward to reviewing the article again and probably discuss more on the talk page. Thank you for understanding. – The Grid (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are you against secondary sources? (Android 10 (operating system)). Your argument against them seems nonsensical. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Why are you against providing the primary source along with the secondary sources? Google is providing an update to their Android program with this announcement. Right from the guideline: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The journalism for tech companies today merely states the same thing from the primary source with their own commentary added. If you meant WP:PSTS, there is no reason to omit either source. For which, I apologize for doing with my most recent edit. The primary and secondary sources should be sourced together. – The Grid (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bradenton Riverwalk you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @The Grid: I've wrapped up my first run-through of the review. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Ganesha811:. Let me just read your comments and provide a response to them. – The Grid (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

The article Bradenton Riverwalk you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bradenton Riverwalk for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about archiving active discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndroid_10&type=revision&diff=914534633&oldid=914534622   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

When you were warned to actually conduct a discussion and that if you didn't actually discuss, which is what I did, I think it's perfectly acceptable. You had been told multiple times that you could create a summary in the lede, but you ignored that request because you wanted to make it a list bullet points of changes or enhancements. Three different editors reverted your addition of such a list. Take a hint and stop forum shopping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Should I warn you about playing games? Which discussion didn't I discuss? You are the one playing games. Your conduct is reprehensible. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas: It seems like it's forum shopping. What could have been kept in one place, you expanded to 3 different places for discussion. Walter Görlitz could have closed the discussion thread instead of archiving but I don't understand why you don't want to try to centralize the discussion about your concerns as it seems he was keeping it to where you originally posted it at WT:MOSLIST. The archived discussion is still there for reference. – The Grid (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

WT:MOSLIST was specifically about the claim that lists are not allowed in leads. The discussion in android article was specific to that content.

In more detail. Android 10 article talk page was about not meeting wp:lead guideline of about 4 paragraphs of content and discuss what makes the article interesting. The Android 10 talk page was started first. On that talk page the claim was made that it violates the list guideline. So another list talk page was started on the list talk page to discuss if that is true. Each talk page is best to discuss each subject and there is zero forum shopping. The best talk page at the best time is being used to discuss respect content.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As nobody has objected to your proposal to split Parlophone, I suggest that you just go ahead. The (mainly uncited!) list of artists has overwhelmed the article. Left to me, I would just delete the lot! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad • Pakaran Interface administrator changes MSGJ

CheckUser changes L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47 Ivanvector DeltaQuad Oversight changes L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, The Grid. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Celery Fields".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Do not understand what you mean - even if Roosevelt was in the area, why would not having a log mean he was either there or not? - What log are you referring to? The fact that FDR traveled by car from Florida City to Key West on February 18, 1939 is well documented. He was accompanied by reporters. There was and still is only one way to do this, driving on the Overseas Highway through Islamorada within a stone's throw of The Florida Keys Memorial. The Memorial was a WPA project funded by the Federal Government and on the occasion of its dedication on November 14, 1935 FDR sent a telegram to be read at the dedication ceremony. That there is no mention of FDR even noticing the Memorial as he motored by, let alone stopping to make some comments is noteworthy and suggests his indifference to the victims.Bcrford (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bcrford: the sources provided are reliable resources that Roosevelt was at Key West on February 18, 1939. There's no denying this finding of fact with the sources provided. However, much of the paragraph sounded like synthesis which is original research. I'm going to quote directly from the policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

• Before the removal, the paragraph was the following:

• I highlighted the sentences that appear to be synthesis in red. You provided some great references and the statements that are provided with reliable sources are in green. However, we can't make our own conclusion from these published materials unless the resources make this conclusion. I understand what you're implying on the importance but we're not here to right great wrongs - we just state what is from the sources. You have provided a great amount of material to the article and please don't take it personal for any editing or markup that is being done to your contributions. – The Grid (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Your objection appears to be that describing an historical figure's act or omission as "puzzling" somehow crosses a line of impartiality. My conclusion that it may evidence indifference does not appear in the article. That's left to the reader. History is replete with puzzling behavior. To censor descriptions of such instances distorts our understanding, in this case, of a very complex man.– Bcrford (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello "The Grid". With reference to the blog post that was linked in the eye strain page: I agree that to be of encyclopedic value it needs to have a citation from a reputed source. However, when current scientific methods have no technique of measuring extraocular eye strain, and the author has been through many years of experimentation and is unbiased and honest in the opinions provided, and the blog post is not self-serving (there are no ads on the blog and the post promotes only uninterrupted sleep, which is medically proven), it does partially qualify as having encyclopedic value (via statements of opinion, "When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion"). Since this is an outlier case that medical professionals are unaware about, and this blog post presents known facts and unknown facts as-is, in an honest and unbiased manner, and since current medical research mandates that experimentation on a particular topic cannot be performed on a single test candidate, it is extremely difficult to obtain a published citation from a reputed medical journal. However, since the author has taken a logical approach, has provided proper reasons and does not make any outrageous claims, it might be a candidate source of knowledge on a topic that is yet to receive attention from the medical community, and can currently provide relief to people suffering from chronic eye strain, by unbiasedly informing them of the root causes of fatigue-related eye strain, while debunking myths propagated by medical professionals and the general public. A stark contrast is available in a blog post by another author on the topic of chronic eye strain (a similar outlier case), where the claims made are superficial and much less credible. The rules on self published sources appear to be about blog posts on the personal lives of people. If there is a way to link to the eye strain blog post or to cite it within Wikipedia's rule framework, please do. If there isn't, then a valuable piece of knowledge is just going to be lost in a sea of myths propagated in a field that has been unable to cure fatigue-related eye problems. Navinwiki (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill Deor • Spartaz • Xeno Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Oversight changes Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Someguy1221

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 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.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

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

Administrator changes Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes Dennis Brown Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

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]

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.

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!