Jump to content

User talk:Nthep/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2018

Delivered November 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nthep. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

As a new user of Wikipedia, I thought your edits to be overly harsh. However, as I read your comments and reviewed the guidelines/rules, I became more appreciative. Hope my edits have gotten better. Your feedback has been helpful. WendyJS (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@WendyJS: sorry about that but when you see a load of edits by an account with Consulting in the name and it's all positive news, it's not hard to jump to the conclusion this is a PR firm trying to big up a client especially when the words are directly lifted from state publications. I've made a slight copy-edit just to make the prose a bit more relaxed and I removed a paragraph about the task force as it was about the task force itself and not Sanguinetti's own role on it. The only other things I'd say are:
  1. no spaces between punctuation and the opening <ref> tab,
  2. you're writing for a global audience not a US-only one so try and use language that the rest of the world, including me, will understand more easily e.g. spell state names out in full - Illinois not IL and spell out abbreviations and acronyms at first time of use. I've no idea what DCEO is an acronym for, let alone understand what "Unfunded mandate statewide cost of compliance estimates by DCEO" means. Is that the title of the bill or a summary of it? If it's a summary it fails quite spectacularly, in my opinion, to explain the bill and if it's the title then it needs a summary/explanation.
  3. if you get a query like the one added at the top of the article about the relevance of a category, don't just add a reference in reply but work your response into the article text. Here I just added that she was the first Hispanic lieutenant governor into one of the sections with the reference and removed the query box added.
  4. don't ignore criticism of the subject, Wikipedia articles should be neutral so if there is valid criticism of the subject in reliable sources that criticism needs to be mentioned as well as the positive achievements. There are policies about the weight to be given (WP:UNDUE) but don't ignore it as that can smack of hagiography towards the subject. I know nothing of Sanguinetti but my limited knowledge of US politics suggests to me that she is either a very skilful or very lucky politician if her term of office hasn't attracted significant criticism over something. I don't mean routine disapproval or disagreements by her opponents or detractors but something that became a major topic of discussion in the press.
I hope you'll stick around and work on other articles as well. Nthep (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Uniforms of the Italian Armed Forces

I start thanking you for the copyright review but after that, I found my added text's percentage increased to 70000 bytes instead of 26000 bytes. This would become a problem since is an educational project for school and group's equal contributions are important. Can you check it, please? Maybe there was a problem that gave me all the draft's bytes (45000) added to my 26000. Thank you in advance LIUCnicolo01 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@LIUCnicolo01: The page stats say you've added 71,000 bytes, this is an issue with the software where it counts the first edit after a revision-deleted edit as adding the entire size of the article rather than the actual size change. So it is crediting you with a 46,000 byte size change rather than the 1 byte it actually was. You'll just have to discard that when it comes to working out who has contributed how much. Nthep (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A. D. Kean vs. Arthur Kean article

Thank you for reviewing my article. I am wondering, though, about your changing of the title. Throughout his life and ever since, the subject of the article was publicly known as "A. D. Kean" or "Cowboy Kean," never as "Arthur Kean". "A. D. Kean" was the byline of all his published articles; it was also how he was referred to in newspaper coverage of his filmmaking acrtivies. If Wikipedia style forbids using people's given names initials in an article title, could we at least go with "Arthur D. Kean" instead? Filmhunter (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: Arthur D. Kean is entirely plausible and done. Nthep (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

I made some changes on the wiki page and they were all sources via newspaper articles..why were the additions not approved

All statements are sourced and valid can we come to a compromise?

Eugene Melnyk

Thanks

I

Vpnny (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vpnny: I have three concerns about the edits you made to Eugene Melnyk:
  1. They totally lack context. So Melnyk is suing somebodies, big deal; loads of businessmen are involved in lawsuits every day, but I have no idea why this particular lawsuit is relevant to the Wikipedia article about Melnyk. I have no idea if this is a big story in Ottawa or across Canada but Wikipedia goes to a global audience so unless you can put this issue in context that a global audience will be able to glean why it's relevant then don't.
  2. You've gone into a lot of detail for something that hasn't yet, as far as I can tell, had a court hearing yet. Yes, every statement may have been sourced to newspapers but again without the context, so what? Also you need to read WP:UNDUE and why issues need to be given the right amount of coverage. At the moment it looks to me like nothing more than "businessman has a falling out with partners".
  3. And this is the least of my concerns but please read WP:REFB on how to add references to Wikipedia articles.
Everything you wrote may be completely in order and appropriate to the article but it needs explaining why that is the case. Nthep (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
If I provide context would you reconsider?
@Vpnny: You don't have to justify anything to me, if you re-add the content and it's in context and goes along with Wikipedia policies on WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP then fine. Nthep (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the context

I hope we can come to a compromise

"Respected voices in media - none more prominently than Ottawa Citizen business reporter James Bagnall (include citation), NHL Analyst Elliotte Friedman (include citation) and the CBC's Joanne Chianello have concluded - based on the conclusions of independent studies by Price Waterhouse Coopers (include citation) that the construction by Trinity Group of competing 900 Albert Street has undermined the value of the Rendezvous LeBreton project, thus jeopordizing the future of NHL hockey in downtown Ottawa. This development has gutted a 4.5 Billion Dollar development that would have been the largest in the City's history...

in other words, the story is not about a lawsuit, it is about the failure of the city's largest ever business opportunity.

Vpnny (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but as a non-Ottawan this isn't comprehensible. Let me summarise how I understand what you have written;
  1. Melnyk is one of a number of people and groups involved in a proposal to develop an area of Ottawa, including a new stadium for the Senators (LeBreton Flats).
  2. One of the partner organisations in this development, Trinity Development, are also involved in a proposal to for another development nearby (900 Albert St skyscraper)
  3. Melnyk alleges Trinity have a conflict of interest and 900 Albert Street threatens one of (the largest?) developments in Ottawa history and as a result is suing Trinity for damages as 900 Albert Street will cause the LeBreton Flats proposal to fail.
  4. Legal proceedings have only just started and are not yet concluded.
  5. Neither proposal has completed or been abandoned yet.
If I am anywhere near correct then it doesn't need seven paragraphs in the article on Melnyk to summarise an ongoing, unresolved dispute which isn't really about him. One shortish paragraph could give sufficient weight and detail to his involvement in something that potentially merits its own article and/or is more relevant to the article on the Senators not their owner. As you have written above the story is not about a lawsuit, it is about the failure of the city's largest ever business opportunity exactly, it's not about Melnyk other than he is one of the people involved, trying to include all the (on-going) detail about a business proposal into an article about an individual is coatracking. If this dispute really is a big issue then write a separate article about it. Nthep (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2018

Delivered December 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

The Teamwork Barnstar
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

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

RD1

Thanks for cleaning up the RD1 requests. I've been trying to knock some of these off but there were a handful that weren't straightforward and see that you took them on. Thanks.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

  • OAWiki
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding page Parul Mathur

I have added references to the page of Parul Mathur, an IPS Officer. I think it has enogh references and it need not to be deleted. Workmk (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Workmk: You may think enough has been done, others may take a different view of the article. Once a deletion discussion has been started you must let it take it's course. You can add your opinion to the discussion but you must not remove the AFD notice or blank the discussion just because you think it isn't necessary. Nthep (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

@Nthep , Thank You for your guidance. I am new to wikipedia. I will try to follow rules. Thank You Workmk (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Mike Ford

Hi, if the references were the issue, couldn't you have changed those rather than the whole thing? The infobox doesn't show Ford's coaching career, so I added it, isn't it just a case of adding in references now? It felt a little heavy handed to revert the whole thing. Unless I've misunderstood? Thanks TGB13 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

By changing the infobox template from {{Infobox rugby league biography}} to {{Infobox rugby biography}} an amount of detail about his playing career was lost as well as the references included in the infobox. {{Infobox rugby league biography}} caters for coaching careers in both codes and that detail is now added - by convention only head coaching roles are included in the infobox. Nthep (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

List of UTC time offsets

Hi there, can you consider the recent string of edits (without summaries) that user:Lachlb has made to the above article please. This has mostly involved amending the principal cities sections, including adding extra cities from countries and adding cities that cannot be regarded as ‘principal', against the consensus that has applied for some time and is reflected in the note at the article. They have also made a couple of changes to the actual time zones, which are unsourced. I have returned to earlier versions of the article a few times and have messaged them (but got no response). I’ve not reverted their latest edits and I see someone else has made changes since, though I think that has just been to amend some of what Lachlb has added. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eldumpo: I don't think his edits are actionable just yet, annoying - perhaps, contrary to previous consensus - probably, but not actually disruptive. He doesn't appear to have introduced anything that is factually incorrect this time and not responding to talk requests isn't a wikicrime so I don't think there is anything to be done at this stage. Nthep (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this, and I note your view. I guess I will just keep returning the article to earlier versions in the absence of someone else making active changes there. I suppose we could both technically be in conflict with 3RR although I am returning it to the earlier position before these changes. Eldumpo (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Eldumpo: I really do empathise with you over this. There are articles I watch that I see people making, imo, pointless edits to that add nothing to the overall substance of the article - like Lachlb here, re-arranging the order of cities or adding one or two in - and it's like an itch that has to be scratched. I've had to learn (am learning) to leave these alone, much as I find them annoying or irritating, and deal only with the edits that really make a difference and materially affect the accuracy or neutrality of the article. Nthep (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RFL President's Cup

Hi, thanks for polishing up my article. I notice its been listed for deletion. Is there anything we can do to strengthen it and avoid that?

Also I'm curious as to why you removed all the links to the games? These serve has a great archive of the competition's history. Is that not the done thing or is there another reason?

Appreciate the support and advice!

David Feederdave (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Feederdave: My advice, find some more sources that talk about the setting up of the tournament. Basically you should aim to put a source to every sentence in the article especially the history section. The allegation of routine coverage relates to the results and is irrelevant. So, IMO, is the allegation about original research which I think is about the tables - constructing a table based on sourced results is simple calculation in my book and not OR. So don't worry too much about that bit - although if you can find the tables in print somewhere (online or hard copy) it would help. I don't have my back copies of League Express from 2014-16 any more (they were occupying too much space) but I'm sure they would have appeared in there.
As for the You Tube links, it's not the done thing and it is also open to allegations of spamming. If you can group all the links into one You Tube collection link then it might be acceptable as an external link on the article.
Above all, don't panic :-) Nthep (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nthep: Thanks for this and thanks for continuing to polish up! Appreciate your help. I will go through my back issues of League Express too and get those tables referenced.
Understood about YouTube - thanks for clarifying. I'll look at getting them all into a channel and then posting an external link.
There's been a motion to keep the article and I have added a "Keep" motion too. If you can support too it would be appreciated.
Keep up the good work on spreading the word about RL! Feederdave (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Feederdave: the important information to find is press coverage of the introduction of the then Associations Cup. Must have been early 2014 (although with the RFL you never know). That is key to cementing the notability of the competition. Also useful would be reports of scrapping the women's competition, you've mentioned it but the reference given doesn't actually say that the establishment of the performance unit was the reason the women's competition was abolished. It might be worth asking for help on the FB group for material. Nthep (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nthep: I've found an RFL archived page on the way back machine which references the introduction and a nice article and quote on the Teachers RL Association. I've also found some info on the review of the performance pathway for the women. I'll need to get onto League Express back issues for better detail. Feederdave (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nthep/Archive_28&oldid=1199710774"