This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:J Milburn.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 thecurrent talk page.
Orphaned non-free image File:PALogoWeb copy.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploadingFile:PALogoWeb copy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
You head into the featured content report. Amongst the features you see astronauts, both Gilbert and Sullivan, Ursula K. Le Guin's incredibly talented mother, andBillboard charts. It is pitch black, you are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be foundhere. If you have not yet signed up, you canadd your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to theWikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are:Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) andCwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck!MediaWiki message delivery (talk)14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
SYMBIOSIS: Thelichen task force newsletter — January 2023 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Happy new year! We head into 2023 with plenty of work to do. We're missing articles on a handful of lichen families, scores of lichen genera and thousands of lichen species. Dozens of important lichenologists are "missing" too. We need to check or update the taxonomy of hundreds of existing taxa articles. Many articles about basic lichen structures and functions are either tiny stubs or badly in need of referencing or updating. There's certainly enough to keep us busy for a good long while! Here's to a productive year ahead.
MerielGJones has added articles for several important lichenologists.
MeegsC has completely rewritten thelichen growth forms article, and has nominated it forgood article status. Several pre-existing stubs have been redirected to this expanded article.
Newsletter challenge – last month's champion and a new challenge
Kazamzam met last month's challenge and provided an updated reference for theCladonia squamosa article – which indicated a significantly larger world range for the species than had been previously listed. Nice job!
This month, we're looking for someone to replace the dead reference inRamalina fraxinea (defunct since April 2018!) with one (or more) which corroborates the information that the old reference did. The editor who meets this challenge will get public kudos in the next newsletter.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at theTip Line with your ideas!
Voting for theSound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location usingbullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recentCoolest Tool Awards.
Voting in the2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip:Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Thank you very much for doing this since I am just beginning to straighten this article out. It is a good thing that you left a note atWP:BLPN since some stupid high school student in Upstate NY has already tried to vandalize this article. (If they are stupid enough to return, I will just nominate that their IP network be blocked for a few days/weeks since their dumb vandalism have already earned them one strike against their single IP and/or their entire school network.) I am currently going through the article's award section, which is going to be a slow slog since I am also found that I need to update information on the various award pages. So thanks again and to your many past contributions to WP. --96.64.134.61 (talk)16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hannah Arendt has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. - car chasm (talk)02:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
@Pirhayati: I don't know who was listed in the categories before, so hard to say. I suppose I'd say that there are plenty of ethicists who aren't moral philosophers, but these categories are disputed. I don't think there's any harm lumping moral philosophers in with ethicists -- and I think the phrase "Philosophers of ethics and morality" is bizarre!Josh Milburn (talk)15:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. Apologies for this random message. I hope you are doing well. I wanted to reach out to you after I started working on rewriting theKes (Star Trek), possibly for a FAC and primarily to just improve the article in general. I hope I am not the only editor who cringes when they look back on their old work on here. Anyway, I just thought of you since you helped a great deal with the GAN review, and I wanted to drop in and see how you were doing. I hope you are having a great start to your week!Aoba47 (talk)22:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2023
Women in RedMar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261
TheTerms of Use update cycle has started, whichincludes a[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Why did you revert the edits? I improved the lede. I fixed typos. I got rid of redundant information--I am not sure why you want to tell us who published Pierce's books three times but once is enough.
I separated the dates and places of employment from her philosophy because this is an encyclopedia, not a chronistic biography. Anyone trying to research Pierce for her beliefs should be able to pinpoint what her beliefs are without reading through a rambling paragraph about where she worked, when, what books were published by what company, etc.Sagsbasel (talk)09:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that you improved the lead. I thought the lead was fine, but I tried to trim down the lead out of recogition of your concerns. Of course, you just reverted this, and also reverted my addition of a source for a claim you were concerned was unsourced. I did not see any typos that you fixed. Maybe you think that the information is best separated, but I don't. That's why I recerted you, as per thebold, revert, discuss cycle. But rather than discussing this on the article talk page, you reverted me, which looks pretty clearly likeedit warring.Josh Milburn (talk)09:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The lede was nearly as long as the article itself. You were bogging it down with book titles, dates of publication, and publisher information. Is there a reason that this publication information is so important that you need it to appear three times in the article? And why it certainly needs to be in the lede?Sagsbasel (talk)09:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Pierce is notable for her published work. The whole point of alead section is to provide "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Maybe the version of the lead I favour included too much information. (I don't think so, but there's room for disagreement about this.) In recognition of that fact, I tried to trim down the lead when you raised concerns.Josh Milburn (talk)09:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
So is Stephen King but his lede isn't just a string of book titles and dates. The current lede does give a concise overview of Pierce. It identifies her as a philosopher, it establishes context, explains why she is notable, and summarizes the most important points. A string of book titles does none of that, you would already have to be familiar with the books to know what context they provide. Dates provide no context here. Nor do her publishers' names.Sagsbasel (talk)09:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And this is the sort of thing we should be discussing on the article talk page. It's not the sort of thing that justifies you ignoring the bold, revert, discuss cycle to force your favoured version of the lead (and article structure, and...) into the article.Josh Milburn (talk)09:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I am the bold one. You reverting to a seven year old version is not a bold move, it's a safe move. Take the hint, you suck at writing articles. The only people who thought Pierce was notable were psychologists already familiar with her work. Everyone who wasn't a psychology student thought she was an irrelevant nobody.Sagsbasel (talk)10:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know you are the bold one. I was the 'reverting' one. The point of the cycle is that we should boldly update, but then, if reverted, start a conversation. Again, please readWP:BRD. And there's no need for this abuse towards me or towards Pierce.Josh Milburn (talk)10:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what you are asking me to read. You boldly update, I revert. The discuss part: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." There is now a thread on the talk page. I kindly ask you to engage with that thread (which you are doing) and to restore the 'original' version of the article (i.e., the version as of 08:45, 17 March 2023) while the conversation is ongoing.Josh Milburn (talk)10:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with you restoring it. (I incorrectly thought you'd gone, otherwise I would have checked with you.) But it does seem to me that she doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion.Deb (talk)14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Sagsbasel, I supported your view, but please don't be rude to other contributors. That's counter-productive.Deb (talk)14:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Deb: Sagsbasel has been indefinitely blocked by Courcelles. Out of interest, do you think the article in its current state suggests that she doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion? I accept that, after Sagsbasel removed all the secondary sources from the article, it didn't look particularly impressive. But the current article cites dozens of secondary sources focussed on Pierce's work. These include scholarly reviews, scholarly appraisals about her place in the literature, journalistic pieces, interviews, reviews in mainstream media... I'm not sure what more you could want for an article about an academic philosopher!Josh Milburn (talk)15:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I think it's okay now. I'm a bit surprised that she doesn't hold a senior academic post though.Deb (talk)15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, that's good to hear. As for senior posts... I think that's just her choice. She's decided she'd rather stay out of teaching/admin, instead sticking to writing. Attractive, of course, but I don't know how many academics could actually support themselves like that...Josh Milburn (talk)15:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2023
Women in RedApr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266
Therollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
In this article, we will look atThe Signpost statistics. More precisely:Signpost article statistics by year, TOP 20 titles ofSignpost articles, TOP 20 article authors, and the home wikis of article authors.
First of a two part series summarising the priorities for the Wikimedia Foundation's next fiscal year (July 2022–June 2023) including staffing, budget and other changes, and how to provide your feedback.
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
Arequest for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on thePage Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Featured article review for Dungeons & Dragons (album)
I have nominatedDungeons & Dragons (album) for afeatured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets thefeatured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process arehere.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The second article in a series describing the priorities and work of the Wikimedia Foundation. The article invites Wikimedians to collaborate with the Foundation.
@Girth Summit: Thanks! I read her bookVictims of Fashion, which is great, and interviewed her about it for a podcast I manage. (You can listen inhere, if you're interested.) Seemed a shame that she didn't have an article.Josh Milburn (talk)09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, she's a really impressive scholar, her output is extraordinary. I know her through my partner's work, we often go for drinks in the Golden Balls or the Phoenix.GirthSummit (blether)09:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with~~~~.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
The Wikipedia Library:#1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting andnotable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
Followingan RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned bycommunity consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation'sIP Masking project, anew policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. Anassociated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects ofIP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki untilat least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration caseWorld War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article onTiberius III.
Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
Thanks for your contributions toEthics & the Environment. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing becauseit needs more sources to establish notability.Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
InJuly 2015 around15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As ofJuly 2023,19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary!Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
Catia Faria's book Animal Ethics in the Wild notability
Hi, I'm thinking of creating an article for this book, but I'm not sure if it meets sufficient notability yet because I've only managed to find one formal review:https://philpapers.org/rec/BOBCFA
@Throughthemind: You timed this question well; I've just had my review accepted inUtilitas; I suspect it'll be online in a couple of weeks, but you can see the author accepted versionhere. The Bekoff'sPsychology Today piece or Johannsen's interview as part of the New Books Network are surely citable, but I wouldn't lean on them for determining notability. But two "proper" book reviews (Bobier and I) is probablyjust enough. I've no doubt other book reviews will appear in time. Faria and CUP have also done an impressive job of gatheringpre-publication praise, but, again, I don't think that's going to be helpful for etablishing notability.Josh Milburn (talk)11:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Josh! Thank you for reviewing myDYK nomination so quickly. I can confirm I don't need to review another DYK nom as this is my first nomination, so that hopefully means we're good to go. Best wishes,A.D.Hope (talk)18:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, do you know if Siobhan O'Sullivan was an animal rights advocate or was she was animal welfare? There are a couple of confused articles, I would like to sort them out so that they have the correct categories and template. She is currently on the animal rights template.Psychologist Guy (talk)21:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy: She was an advocate of animal rights (in the broad sense at thevery least), but a lot of her work wasabout animal welfare, in part because her work was a little more emperical than that of a lot of people working on animals and political theory. I'd argue that she's an important name in animal rights because of her major role in the 'political turn', which is a mostly rights-y literature.Here's a paper byTony Milligan that explicitly situates her in that way. Meanwhile, inthis coauthored paper, she explicitly rejects the animal rights/animal welfare binary. So I think it'd be fair to classify her as part of both 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare'.Josh Milburn (talk)07:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I know some other authors have also rejected the animal rights or welfare classification. It's makes it a bit harder to categorize them at Wikipedia. I know that Marc Bekoff firmly opposes animal welfare but he sometimes works with such groups. I am not convinced with the authors arguments but it is sad to see both authors are now deceased who wrote "The Political Turn in Animal Ethics". Someone you may be interested in is Karen Bradshaw author ofWildlife as Property Owners[2], I believe she would qualify for an article at Wikipedia, I might try and create it next month.Psychologist Guy (talk)10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy:The Political Turn in Animal Ethics was from O'Sullivan andRobert Garner -- Garner is still alive (to the best of my knowledge!). He's a different person fromGary Varner, who recently died. And yes, I know Karen, but not well. Iinterviewed her a couple of years ago, and I agree that an article about her would be good. Fun fact: Her book wasincluded in a goody bag for the Grammies!Josh Milburn (talk)14:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, I believe I have confused those two authors before in the past. That's a good podcast with Karen Bradshaw, I have listened to some of your other podcasts including one with Michael Huemer. An issue with BLP's with people involved with animal rights or welfare is that they are not all notable so will probably end up being removed from Wikipedia, for example, Jonathan Birch wouldn't qualify for an article, so it would be pointless me spending time creating it[3].
Most of my article creations are for deceased individuals, I find the historical stuff more interesting and there are more sources. I have created articles forLaurids Smith,Humphrey Primatt,David Renaud Boullier,Herman Daggett,Richard Dean,Herman Daggett,Christian Adam Dann,Wilhelm Dietler,C. W. Hume etc. What's interesting to me is that many of these thinkers have already proposed many of the "new" ideas taken up by recent researchers in the field of animal rights/welfare but these old researchers are forgotten. The problem is that many of these old books written in the 1700 and 1800s were not translated into English. I plan on translating many of these works myself and uploading them to archive.org for free because they are in the public domain. Wilhelm Dietler' book for example makes an early argument from marginal cases that has gone unnoticed. Every year a lot of new papers come out on animal ethics but there is very little to do with historical research. I have a list of forgotten European animal rights writers from the 1700s and 1800s. If I am able to translate the books and put them out there, hopefully modern researchers might cite some of the older researchers.Psychologist Guy (talk)21:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sympathetic to what you say. There are a few 'forgotten' thinkers who are now becoming a bit more familiar to animal ethicists (Porphyry, Salt, Cobbe etc.) and some effort to recognise the animal-friendly elements of well-known thinkers. But I agree with you that there's lots of work to be done.
I think Birch is Wikipedia-notable, by the way. His work is (as far as philosophy goes) very highly cited, and (as far as I can remember) there's a fairly direct link between some of his work and government policy, so I suspect he meetsWP:ACADEMIC. Meanwhile, his book was widely reviewed (eg,1,2,3 (byMichael Ruse, no less),4,5 ('review article'),6 (ditto)) so I suspect he meetsWP:AUTHOR. I'll look into putting together an article myself, and we can see if it sticks.Josh Milburn (talk)08:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree I didn't realise that, Jonathan Birch has a lot of reliable book reviews I see you have found so I think he would qualify for an article easily. I have just realised that you can actually take screenshots of certain YouTube videos that are uploaded on YouTube under a CC license (example Joey Carbstrong[4]). They are freely licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Therefore in theory your article creations could add a YouTube snapshot such as for Bob Fischer etc. I created a lot of articles and didn't realise this, so I will probably be updating many with images.Psychologist Guy (talk)17:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the article you have done a top quality job. I was just watching one of his videos[5]. I couldn't find a birth date for Birch but it probably isn't important.Psychologist Guy (talk)12:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2023
Women in RedAugust 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280
I'm a bit confused by your recent edit there. Nintendo Life isn't directly related to Nintendo, Game Freak or PETA, they're a secondary source in the same network as Eurogamer. Am I misunderstanding something?Kung Fu Man (talk)21:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: Apologies, that's my mistake then. I thought Nintendo Life was a Nintendo publication. My logic was thatof course a Nintendo publication would say that PETA faced backlash in this case. I suppose there's still a question about whether the source is being used appropriately, but I'm happy to leave that to the GA reviewer when the article is picked up. Consider my objection withdrawn!Josh Milburn (talk)07:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The innards of the Signpost received a major overhaul in March/April 2019. Here's how we reduced behind-the-scenes busywork and improved writers resources.
There seems to be some speculation online thatSue Donaldson is the mother ofMrBeast. I believe this is false information (it's a different Donaldson) but people have said the photographs of the mother match. I don't believe it I think it is just a coincidence as the ladies look a bit similar, but maybe you know more about this.Psychologist Guy (talk)11:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I have also managed to find a lot of reviews so the article can be expanded. The Zoopolis book was widely reviewed, I have counted 14 reviews in total, I have access to about 5 of them.Psychologist Guy (talk)16:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes --Zoopolis is very significant. It wasn't the first book exploring animals in political philosophy, but it's surely the one that made the topic (minimally) mainstream.Josh Milburn (talk)08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy: By the way, page 8 ofFoods that Don't Bite Back (first line of the preface), Donaldson says 'I am frequently asked to explain why I am a vegan'. Her account inZoopolis certainly leaves the door open for at least a few non-vegan foods, but I'd be very surprised if she was regularly diverging from veganism. If you don't think she belongs on the list or in the categories, so be it, but I'd be surprised to see her referred to as anything other than a vegan.Josh Milburn (talk)10:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I am doing a lot of work on the list of vegans article so I still need to look into Sue Donaldson. It turns out many of these celebrities are not actually vegan, they are on fish and eggs or other seafood. I always suspected as much. From my own personal experience the people who remain vegan long-term, I am talking decades here without cheating are animal rights advocates, most others give it up or end up cheating. Sue Donaldson might be a strict vegan as she is involved with animal rights, I just haven't seen enough sourcing on it. I will look more into it, I suspect you are probably right. I will take a look at her cookbook.Psychologist Guy (talk)20:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Followingan RfC,TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion atWP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight fordead names found that[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
TheSmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating inXfD have been reminded to be careful about forminglocal consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers ofXfD forums were also encouraged tonote when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top ofSpecial:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email.If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup.Sturmvogel 66 (talk), andCwmhiraeth (talk)
If it is okay with everyone, since we are discussing content now, I want to move this discussion to the article's talk page just in case anyone else wants to chime in. Does that seem appropriate to everyone?Jenhawk777 (talk)20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed,the Wikidata information can be useful
Material must be written with the greatest care and attention; the level of detail and commentary regarding the antlers of living persons is to be kept to a minimum.
An RfC is open regarding amending thepaid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text:Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both viaSpecial:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
TheWikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work,BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and theWikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.
The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited tosign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement!(If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.)Sturmvogel 66 andCwmhiraeth.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Followinga motion, the contentious topic designation ofPrem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Followingseveral motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from theEditor conduct in e-cigs articles,Liancourt Rocks,Longevity,Medicine,September 11 conspiracy theories, andShakespeare authorship question cases.
Followinga motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of theMacedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Followinga motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of theThe Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case namedIndustrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
TheArticles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled inthe Gadgets settings.Sign up here to participate!
This disambiguation page containsthe primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
%2c_frontispiece_-_BL.jpg)
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Technical news
The redirectTSZ has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § TSZ until a consensus is reached.Veverve (talk)21:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
LunaEatsTuna,
Thebiguglyalien,
Sammi Brie,
Trainsandotherthings,
Lee Vilenski,
Juxlos,
Unexpectedlydian,
SounderBruce,
Kosack,
BennyOnTheLoose and
PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.
MyCatIsAChonk,
AirshipJungleman29.
Bureaucrat changes
BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and theWikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-
Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.
![[4]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aJoeyCarbstrongCambridge.png){kind=link}