User talk:Valereee/Archive 57
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Valereee. 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 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
Fueskichelcher
Hello, Valereee, and please excuse the title that sounds like a sound made when sneezing. A while back, I began a draft for this pastry (fueskichelcher) that was declined at the time. I don't agree with the reasoning of the person who reviewed it after the article was improved. Do you believe the article is in a worthy state? I believe I've gotten most of the best sources for the article. Thanks, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition! What I typically like to see is three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are only four sources at that draft, and two of them (Visit Europe and Luxemourg Official Portal) appear to be not independent -- that is, they have a reason for promoting the dish. I do believe the dish is notable, but I'd like to see another source to support notability. Do you read French or German? If you do, you may be able to search in those languages, which it's harder for me to do. Valereee (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. Should I removed those two sources? I read a bit of French (still learning), but most of the articles on the topic are written in German. I'll look around, though. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- The sources are fine for providing additional nocontroversial details, and they can tottally stay. They just don't show notability, which os the minimum requirement, so they can't be used for that. We need at least one more source providing significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Valereee (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. Should I removed those two sources? I read a bit of French (still learning), but most of the articles on the topic are written in German. I'll look around, though. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2023
| ||||||
This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2023)
 Logo for 3dfx
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Play (theatre) • Severe weather Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Adult Adoption (film) has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Valereee (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Tech News: 2023-46
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Four new wikis have been created:
Problems
- Last week, users who previously visited Meta-Wiki or Wikimedia Commons and then became logged out on those wikis could not log in again. The problem is now resolved. [5]
- Last week, some pop-up dialogs and menus were shown with the wrong font size. The problem is now resolved. [6]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 November. It will be on all wikis from 16 November (calendar).
Future changes
- Reference Previews are coming to many wikis as a default feature. They are popups for references, similar to the PagePreviews feature. You can opt out of seeing them. If you are using the gadgets Reference Tooltips or Navigation Popups, you won’t see Reference Previews. Deployment is planned for November 22, 2023.
Canary (also known as heartbeat) events will be produced into Wikimedia event streams from December 11. Streams users are advised to filter out these events, by discarding all events where meta.domain == "canary". Updates to Pywikibot or wikimedia-streams will discard these events by default. [7]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2023)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: 3dfx • Play (theatre) Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
The Signpost: 20 November 2023
- In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
- News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
- Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
- Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
- Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
Tech News: 2023-47
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week. [8][9]
- Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Quechua Wikipedia, Romansh Wikipedia, Romani Wikipedia, Rundi Wikipedia, Aromanian Wikipedia, Tarandíne Wikipedia, Rusyn Wikipedia, Kinyarwanda Wikipedia, Sanskrit Wikipedia, Sakha Wikipedia, Santali Wikipedia, Sardinian Wikipedia, Sicilian Wikipedia, Scots Wikipedia, Sindhi Wikipedia, Northern Sami Wikipedia, Sango Wikipedia, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, Sinhala Wikipedia, Slovak Wikipedia, Slovenian Wikipedia, Samoan Wikipedia, Somali Wikipedia, Albanian Wikipedia, Serbian Wikipedia, Sranan Tongo Wikipedia, Swati Wikipedia, Southern Sotho Wikipedia, Saterland Frisian Wikipedia, Sundanese Wikipedia, Silesian Wikipedia, Tamil Wikipedia, Tulu Wikipedia, Telugu Wikipedia, Tetum Wikipedia, Tajik Wikipedia, Thai Wikipedia, Turkmen Wikipedia, Tagalog Wikipedia, Tswana Wikipedia, Tongan Wikipedia, Tok Pisin Wikipedia, Turkish Wikipedia, Tsonga Wikipedia, Tatar Wikipedia, Twi Wikipedia, Tahitian Wikipedia, Tuvinian Wikipedia, Udmurt Wikipedia, Uyghur Wikipedia, Uzbek Wikipedia, Venda Wikipedia, Venetian Wikipedia, Veps Wikipedia, West Flemish Wikipedia, Volapük Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [10][11][12]
- The Vector 2022 skin will have some minor visual changes to drop-down menus, column widths, and more. These changes were added to four Wikipedias last week. If no issues are found, these changes will proceed to all wikis this week. These changes will make it possible to add new menus for readability and dark mode. Learn more. [13]
Future changes
- There is an update on re-enabling the Graph Extension. To speed up the process, Vega 2 will not be supported and only some protocols will be available at launch. You can help by sharing what you think about the plan.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
DYK for Butts: A Backstory
On 23 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Butts: A Backstory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Washington Post called Butts: A Backstory "cheeky"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Butts: A Backstory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Butts: A Backstory), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2023)
 Institute for sports science in Japan
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Human-centered design • 3dfx Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
Enough of your accusation of bad faith
enough of your accusation of bad faith.
i did my research to find no evidence of prior discussion or consensus for using nyt in that template. did you assume good faith of my research and effort?
stop meddling if you have nothing constructive to add to a discussion. no other editors in those discussions were not focused on the topic in question, the template itself, but only you have no opinion about the template but keep throwing accusation at me.
i had no intention to reply to your immaterial comments, but i find it necessary only for this one time, because you dont know to stop even after being explicitly told https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1175551140 . RZuo (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- also, it seems you dont quite understand why my comments were not "assumption/accusation of bad faith" as you've been repeating, so here i spell it out once.
- i said "there was no prior discussion or consensus" (after i did my due diligence).
- someone else said something like "i made the edit because a discussion asked for it or some users asked for it..."
- my comment #1 is contradicting someone else's comment #2. that's a mere statement. there is no accusation of any kind against any user of any wrongdoing.
- it's only "accusation of bad faith" if i said without evidence comment #2 is wrong because the user lied or made a wrong/false comment on purpose. that's "accusing another user of bad behaviour without evidence". only that is "assumption of bad faith". ("accusing another user of bad behaviour" alone isnt uncivil. that happens all the time on ANI or sockpuppet investigations.) (contradicting another user's statement, in other words "saying blah blah blah is wrong", is also not accusing the user of bad behaviour.)
- even if someone says "s/he made a wrong/false comment maybe by genuine mistake or by accident" etc., that's also not assumption of bad faith. on the contrary, that's assumption of good faith. you assume people made mistakes not deliberately.
- to simplify, here're some example statements:
- you made a mistake - not assumption of bad faith
- your statement is wrong - not assumption of bad faith
- you are wrong - not assumption of bad faith
- you are deliberately wrong as evident by... - not assumption of bad faith
- you lied as evident by... - not assumption of bad faith
- you are deliberately wrong (without evidence) - assumption of bad faith
- you lied (without evidence) - assumption of bad faith
- to recap, my comments ("there was no prior discussion or consensus"/"i found no prior discussion or consensus") made no accusation of any kind against any user.
- i can only say, your imagination filled in everything to my comments.
- your claims dont warrant my reply or are otherwise interesting if you are not sysop or users still remember https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&oldid=1185833428#History . before you throw out accusations against users again, check #6.
- RZuo (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo, thank you for responding. It shouldn't actually make any difference to you whether I'm a sysop or not -- you should be giving due consideration to warnings from any highly experienced user -- but since that seems to be what would make it "interesting" to you, I am. I've given you multiple warnings, and @Moneytrees, another apparently uninvolved sysop, agrees with me. When you are given multiple warnings by more than one experienced user for the same types of behaviors, you should rethink your approach and your understanding of policy. Your edit summary where you removed my most recent of multiple warnings is in itself a problem; you're accusing the zh.wiki sysop of targeting and blocking you for personal political reasons. And now I see you've also been blocked for uncivil behavior on zh-yue.wiki.
- Given that this is the first time you've agreed to discuss this instead of just removing warnings, I am willing to keep talking until I believe you understand that you are simply going to have to change your approach, or be blocked here too. But you should realize that it's quite likely others are seeing this exchange, and some of them might not be as willing to give you yet another chance to learn. Valereee (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- i didnt notice the block on yuewp on a single page. i didnt get a notification. that only happened this morning. actually, i wasnt notified of the discussion involving me that started on 7 november that led to that block. i replied there.
- if you are really interested in understanding the zhwp block on a single page, maybe you can help me get an answer from that sysop, because you should see https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARZuo&action=history and see that i asked that sysop twice but there was no reply. i also asked a third time but also was not replied https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMys_721tx&diff=prev&oldid=79834496 .
- the reason given was "贬损特定国籍", translated as "insulting a certain nationality", but without mentioning what nationality i was insulting or how. my edit that they used against me is https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3A%E8%AB%8B%E6%B1%82%E8%A9%95%E8%AB%96%2F2024%E5%B9%B4%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E4%BA%BA%E5%93%A1%E5%88%B6%E5%BA%A6%E6%94%B9%E9%9D%A9&diff=prev&oldid=79795347 . feel free to google translate to get an idea.
- from my understanding it's generally frowned upon to bring up other wiki projects' issues. i'm not accusing you here, take note, dont misinterpret again. i'm saying this only to say that, my impression of wiki customs is that i should not go at great lengths to discuss other wikis' things. i'm writing these here only because you are mentioning those things, and without specific contexts of what happened else where, so i feel i have to respond once. zhwp controversies are long lasting, as reported by media. RZuo (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're exhibiting an apparent pattern of similar problematic behavior on multiple projects. The point is that you see what is resulting from that pattern, in hopes that you'll see it's not working for you. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- i'll summarise the problem on zhwp. as enwp users are familiar, the common recipe is when a user challenges a block repeatedly, they get blocked further "for battleground behaviour". but my questions were met with silence and no further blocks.
- i'm satisfied with this outcome, because from my point of view, it stands as evidence of that user's pro-china bias and usage of sysop tools to target anti-china-govt users, so i dont challenge that block.
- as for yuewp, i know what's happening behind the scene, involving telegram group discussions and chats, but revealing what's actually happening will be wp:outing. i can only say, users should keep in mind that small wikis are often rife with problems with sysops, for example croatian, Azerbaijani... all these wikis have bigger communities than yuewp too.
- enwp users should know how easily sysops or any users can use perfectly normal things as excuse to frustrate users they dont like. enwp is not free of such problems either. (take note, not accusing you Valereee here, dont misinterpret again.)
- and if those other wikis' things are taken out of context to be used here, it's not ethical.
- i think it's more ethical if you can hide the mentions about other wikis and collapse these sections. focus on enwp all you like. hiding or collapsing doesnt imply that i try to cover up (on the contrary i'm open to users scrutinising my edits on all wiki projects including but not limited to zhwp), but only to keep the long discussions short and on point about enwp. RZuo (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're exhibiting an apparent pattern of similar problematic behavior on multiple projects. The point is that you see what is resulting from that pattern, in hopes that you'll see it's not working for you. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- just to pre-empt any more of your accusation against me:
- it's obviously difficult to show evidence to prove something is non-existent (the consensus to add nyt to the template), but why was i so sure that it doesnt exist? because i not only had found nothing through my searching in archives of discussion on vp, template talk, module talk, etc., i also had found why and how nyt was added. all this was done before i even initiated the topic on 13 July 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1165227990 .
- and that's why i worded my proposal in that way. because the addition of nyt was done by a single user and had no Wikipedia:Consensus, any objection to it should send templates back to the original state (without nyt), then people can discuss whether they should include nyt. so i said "i disagree with the edit..."
- and inclusion from 2008 to 2023 for a long time (15 years) cannot be equated to consensus, as explained by Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing ("An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.") and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. notably, i'm not the first user to object to the solo usage of nyt. its inclusion was already disputed before i even registered my account.
- the addition of nyt is traced to this edit by a user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Find_sources_3&diff=prev&oldid=217157307 . their user contribs records also show that they most likely created the template out of their own action, instead of some discussion, because they didnt have edits to any discussion pages before or after that edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=2008-06-05&namespace=all&start=&tagfilter=&target=Jwillbur&offset=&limit=500 .
- you knew nothing about the template and kept making accusations against me. i ignored your accusations (Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks) but you are relentless. RZuo (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- burden of proof was never on me. users claiming "consensus" need to point to that by themselves. and i know thru my research they never will be able to do that.
- what about Valereee? she has no opinion about the template. she has no clue about the history of the template. she doesnt know where's the "consensus" she was pointing to. she did not or can not find that "consensus" (after 130+ days). she keeps assuming bad faith of me by claiming i was making accusations (i was not making any accusations) without evidence (i did my research and had evidence).
- stop harassing me. already ruined my morning. i personally dont need an apology because i dont care, but i expect one so that other users understand Valereee's many accusations against me were unfounded. RZuo (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo, so what you're saying is that you are not interested in or willing to discuss changing your approach to the collaborative process here? Valereee (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
technical
|
|---|
|
sectioning
You've made this conversation impossible to follow, so I'm sectioning off to start fresh.
What's happening here on enwiki: it doesn't matter whether you feel you've done all the research you need to do to convince yourself the other editor was either, according to you:
- deliberately wrong as evident by... - not assumption of bad faith
- you lied as evident by... - not assumption of bad faith
when you do not have the evidence to back that up. I agree with you that it's impossible to prove a negative, which means you cannot make such accusations. It absolutely does not matter whether that evidence is impossible to find; when the other editor is saying to their recall they made the edit in response to some discussion somewhere, you must give at minimum the pretense of assuming good faith. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- i did not accuse any editor of those two lines you quoted.
- i repeat, i did not make any accusation against any user.
- i repeat, it's very certain the inclusion of nyt was not made based on any discussion, because i found how it originated.
the addition of nyt is traced to this edit by a user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Find_sources_3&diff=prev&oldid=217157307 . their user contribs records also show that they most likely created the template out of their own action, instead of some discussion, because they didnt have edits to any discussion pages before or after that edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=2008-06-05&namespace=all&start=&tagfilter=&target=Jwillbur&offset=&limit=500 .
- take note, this edit was in 2008, not the edit in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AFind_sources%2Ftemplates%2FFind_sources&diff=prev&oldid=722553515 . 2016 edit was merely migrating the template to a module and then using the module in the template.
- any user can claim there was no consensus. any user can claim there was consensus. two contradicting statements. obviously the burden of proof is on people who claim something exists.
- regardless, making claims about the existence of a consensus is not accusation against any user. there's no assumption of good faith or bad faith towards any user.
- i will explain to you again what "assuming good/bad faith" really means. given these 2 facts:
- "the other editor is saying to their recall they made the edit in response to some discussion somewhere"
- no one could find that discussion
- then, if someone makes the following claims based on these 2 facts:
- the other editor remembered it wrong or forgot. (this is assumption of good faith.)
- the other editor lied. (this is assumption of bad faith.)
- what i did was, i didnt say anything about the other editor. i dont know and dont care about the other editor's motive, aka why s/he said there was a discussion. i have always only said, there was no such discussion. so i made no accusation against any one, nor any one's motives.
- what you've been accusing me of, the target user of my "bad faith", is the user behind the #4 2016 edit. my assessment of that edit is #4. their action was merely converting the template to the module design. that's technical! not assumption of good/bad faith of them!
- read Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you throw the catch phrase again! i've explained three times to you. i wont do it anymore.
- RZuo (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indef p-block from WP & WT for WP:IDHT. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- an analogy and gist version:
- user A: "there are aliens in the universe."
- me: "there are no aliens." ("i've done my research and cannot find any aliens blah blah blah...")
- Valereee: you assume bad faith of user A. RZuo (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indef p-block from WP & WT for WP:IDHT. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 59
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
- Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
- Tech tip: Library access methods
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Tech News: 2023-48
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 November. It will be on all wikis from 30 November (calendar). There is no new MediaWiki version next week. [14][15]
- MediaWiki's JavaScript system will now allow
async/awaitsyntax in gadgets and user scripts. Gadget authors should remember that users' browsers may not support it, so it should be used appropriately. [16] - The deployment of "Add a link" announced last week was postponed. It will resume this week.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks
I saw your reply at WP:AN, and I appreciate your support. With regards to WP:NOTTHERAPY, I am seeking counseling. I personally don't think you or anyone else who commented on WP:AN is biased to the point where they can't contribute constructively. Sometimes, I fail to do this myself, but I actually get corrected for the most part. I want to be clear though, when I said that some editors are as bigoted as your average Trump supporter, I am not at all equating them with the severe misogynists, transphobes, or Nazis who rightfully get shown the door. I am talking about people who think that certain denominations of Christianity should not be allowed to self-identify (such as mine), or that Evangelical Christians are too WP:INVOLVED to close political WP:RFCs. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- If my emotions start acting up again, I'll let you know. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing! Valereee (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the overnight help. Forgot to ping you in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Saroj32045#24_November_2023 when I flat text mentioned you with the latest account Star Mississippi 14:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Correction and a recommendation
Hi Valereee, I regret that I need to correct you, but I didn't say that my interest in THIS discussion is waning. Perhaps I misspoke, but what I meant is that my interest in the article is past its peak, and I do not expect to be participating in the future discussions at the same level of engagement. This should not be construed as me being absent from the discussion in question or that nothing good will come out of it. The talk thread was just posted, and it would be too early to assume that only disruption can come out of it. Also, there is a specific proposal for the lede to remedy the situation if editors can begin to agree that there is a problem. I’m asking you to please consider reversing the closure, and I recommend that you watch the page for signs of incivility or disruption if you have concerns about the direction of the discussion. Thank you. XMcan (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- @XMcan, a lack of interest in the article is actually worse. If you aren't interested in the article, why are you opening discussion on the talk? I closed it slightly more kindly because I'd seen you say your interest was waning, but I'd have likely closed it and recommended it be moved to a more appropriate place. Maybe your talk? Or the other editor's? Valereee (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- XMcan, you say,
I recommend that you watch the page for signs of incivility or disruption
, but you already reverted four times on the page in less than 24 hours - [17] [18][19][20] - which is a clear bright-line 3RR violation. Isn't that already pretty clearly disruptive? Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2023)
 A Mountfield church in East Sussex
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Sports science • Human-centered design Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
The Signpost: 4 December 2023
- In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns
- Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"
- Comix: Bold comics for a new age
- Essay: I am going to die
- Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence
- Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain
- Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies
Back to the Comisar family
That other got a little ugly. I thought I was being quite pleasant lol. For the Comisars, I found this little snippet from Fortune. I checked the WP:Library; no luck there but it might be worth getting a copy from the Resource Exchange. S0091 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought you were quite pleasant, too. :D Hm, on the Comisars...I wonder if my own library might have that, thanks! Valereee (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-49
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The spacing between paragraphs on Vector 2022 has been changed from 7px to 14px to match the size of the text. This will make it easier to distinguish paragraphs from sentences. [21]
- The "Sort this page by default as" feature in VisualEditor is working again. You no longer need to switch to source editing to edit
{{DEFAULTSORT:...}}keywords. [22]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week. [23][24]
- On 6 December, people who have the enabled the preference for "Show discussion activity" will notice the talk page usability improvements appear on pages that include the
__NEWSECTIONLINK__magic word. If you notice any issues, please share them with the team on Phabricator.
Future changes
- The Toolforge Grid Engine shutdown process will start on December 14. Maintainers of tools that still use this old system should plan to migrate to Kubernetes, or tell the team your plans on Phabricator in the task about your tool, before that date. [25]
- Communities using Structured Discussions are being contacted regarding the upcoming deprecation of Structured Discussions. You can read more about this project, and share your comments, on the project's page.
Events
- Registration & Scholarship applications are now open for the Wikimedia Hackathon 2024 that will take place from 3–5 May in Tallinn, Estonia. Scholarship applications are open until 5 January 2024.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
Administrators' newsletter – December 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
- The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2023)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: East Sussex • Sports science Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
This Month in GLAM: November 2023
| ||||||
Tech News: 2023-50
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- On Wikimedia Commons, there are some minor user-interface improvements for the "choosing own vs not own work" step in the UploadWizard. This is part of the Structured Content team's project of improving UploadWizard on Commons. [26][27]
Problems
- There was a problem showing the Newcomer homepage feature with the "impact module" and their page-view graphs, for a few days in early December. This has now been fixed. [28][29]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 December. It will be on all wikis from 14 December (calendar). [30][31]
Future changes
The 2023 Developer Satisfaction Survey is seeking the opinions of the Wikimedia developer community. Please take the survey if you have any role in developing software for the Wikimedia ecosystem. The survey is open until 5 January 2024, and has an associated privacy statement.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
A WP:DYK holiday award for you?
|
The DYK holiday award goes to? | |
| Thank you for allowing me to work with you in this section of the project. I wish you happy holidays! Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
- Hey, Lightburst, thanks! It's great working with you there, too! Valereee (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)