User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Billinghurst. 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. |
Happy New Year, Billinghurst
 (Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Billinghurst. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, Lotje (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding
{{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included. |
January 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with President of Australia. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Champion: Don't be a chump. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop with the personal attacks, I have explicitly stated that the discussion is still in progress and if you have something to comment, do it at RfD, it is not appropriate to remove deletion tags. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is questionable that you used the undo to remove the RfD tag without closing the debate, when you did do it, you used the undo feature again without providing an adequate edit summary, also, I don't think it was appropriate for it to be closed at that time when there was relatively little input. Also, again, please stop with the personal attacks. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) @Champion: That was not a personal attack, that was a reflection on your actions. As an administrator here I have already closed the discussion with a decision. I believe that I am entitled to do that without you reverting my edits, and leaving facile templated commentary here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PA states that
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.
You may not have taken it that way, but I certainly did, I may have to bring this to ANI, at least this requires the intervention of another editor. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PA states that
- (ec) @Champion: That was not a personal attack, that was a reflection on your actions. As an administrator here I have already closed the discussion with a decision. I believe that I am entitled to do that without you reverting my edits, and leaving facile templated commentary here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is questionable that you used the undo to remove the RfD tag without closing the debate, when you did do it, you used the undo feature again without providing an adequate edit summary, also, I don't think it was appropriate for it to be closed at that time when there was relatively little input. Also, again, please stop with the personal attacks. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop with the personal attacks, I have explicitly stated that the discussion is still in progress and if you have something to comment, do it at RfD, it is not appropriate to remove deletion tags. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- You do as you think that you need to do, though I don't see how you can relate my decision to close, requiring an intervention of another editor. Such little min-threats are just as unnice as use of facile templates.
If you didn't like the decision to close, then you should have brought that to me as a conversation. Instead, you were quick onto the revert button, and the "add a facile message" template, and slow on the conversation. In my opinion any editor who is so quick to use those buttons without conversation is doing others a disservice, and is not respectful of their edits. If you want to give as you seemingly do, then you can take a little reflection, especially when you are here on my talk page seemingly picking a fight, morphing the conversation as you have explored a little more.— billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Had you explained in the initial edit summary that you were closing it, I would have just left you a message, instead, you used a potentially ambiguous and arguable obscure edit summary which I thought was a mistake, you did not explicitly say that, the reason that I brought this to ANI is that I don't want to further continue with this argument and I feel like it is not going anywhere if it stays here. Thanks. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- You do as you think that you need to do, though I don't see how you can relate my decision to close, requiring an intervention of another editor. Such little min-threats are just as unnice as use of facile templates.
Need more inputs
Can you please provide your input on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimisha Mehta? Coderzombie (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI I reverted your edits to this fully-protected page. Since the content and functionality of this page is under dispute, it would be best to get consensus on the talk page first prior to making substantiate edits, especially if those edits could be seen as advancing one side of the dispute or the other. –Grondemar 02:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Grondemar: I disagree that they were substantive edits that needed reverting. We are on a project subpage that had specifically been set up for collating points. I am an experienced user and these factual points added were neutral in commentary and tone. AND if they were reverted, where they were non-inflammatory and reasonably accurate statements then the courtesy of adding them to the talk page would have been more useful. Your role as a fellow administrator is not to play policeman in such a regard with those statements. I suggest to you that if you had wanted the status quo that the better way would have been to ask me to have self-reverted and have asked me to add them to the talk page.
- It is highly inappropriate to use your admin tools to edit through full protection in this way and Grondemar was correct to revert it. From the policy: Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Correct, and I believe that they are uncontroversial — factual statements of current use with examples — especially with my crosswiki and sister experience. I And I stand by my statement that I could have been gently asked me to undo in this circumstance. Niceness costs nothing. Since when do I come in all guns blazing? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is highly inappropriate to use your admin tools to edit through full protection in this way and Grondemar was correct to revert it. From the policy: Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
- Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia
This article is now there, and most recently beefed up with an academic reference. It would not be hard to add to the pamphlets, I reckon. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 February 2017
- Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy
- WikiProject report: For the birds!
- Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes
- Traffic report: Cool It Now
- Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles
Please help me as new user to submit move request
Please reply on my page, I will provide more details. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Хмаринка (talk • contribs) 08:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Imperium Galactica modding tools
Can you please tell me, why do you keep removing my links from both the hungarian and english pages of Imperium Galactica? If the site imperiumgalactica2.hu (also an unofficial site) can be there with my 1.14 patch, then why the original source of the modding tools and the patches cannot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.21 (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can you please tell me why you keep adding them after they have been removed? Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest should be a clear indication of the problem. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory listing for fan pages or mod tools. If you see other links that are outside the scope, then please feel free to remove them. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- If the "encyclopaedia" can contain text about my patches (quoting from the hungarian article of IG2: "Az interneten fellelhető még egy v1.14 patch is, ami egy nem hivatalos rajongói frissítés. Ez minden korábbi gyári és nem hivatalos frissítést tartalmaz a további finomításokon felül - illetve ez lokalizációtól függetlenül is lefut/működik.") then why the link cannot be there? As for removing imperiumgalactica2.hu, why should i? It's not disturbing me. I just told you, that you let that fansite be there and deleted mine. And as for "fansites", countless of Wiki articles about old games, contains links to fansites. For example MobyGames is not an official site for the IG series and their link is still there in the article of IG2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.21 (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you think that my removal is unwarranted then please address it to the local village pump(s), and seek their advice on the addition. Please do not just keep adding a link, when it is reverted; that is not a winning battle. Be sure to mention your vested interest in the addition.
The guidance is clear on addition of such links, and you have no real argument to how your link addition should be overriding the guidance. That there is other incorrect linking around the place is not a green light for continuing the practice, it is an indication of work to do to tidy it up. And as I said, feel free to remove any link outside of the guidance, it is not my crusade. That said your addition of your link outside of guidance I will keep cleaning up, and will look to take through the blacklist practice where you add it outside of the community's consensus process. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you think that my removal is unwarranted then please address it to the local village pump(s), and seek their advice on the addition. Please do not just keep adding a link, when it is reverted; that is not a winning battle. Be sure to mention your vested interest in the addition.
- If the "encyclopaedia" can contain text about my patches (quoting from the hungarian article of IG2: "Az interneten fellelhető még egy v1.14 patch is, ami egy nem hivatalos rajongói frissítés. Ez minden korábbi gyári és nem hivatalos frissítést tartalmaz a további finomításokon felül - illetve ez lokalizációtól függetlenül is lefut/működik.") then why the link cannot be there? As for removing imperiumgalactica2.hu, why should i? It's not disturbing me. I just told you, that you let that fansite be there and deleted mine. And as for "fansites", countless of Wiki articles about old games, contains links to fansites. For example MobyGames is not an official site for the IG series and their link is still there in the article of IG2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.21 (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- So, removing other "fansites" are not your crusade, but removing mine is? It's very interesting. I fail to see, why i deserve your undivided attention. As for continuing reverting your reverts, don't be afraid; i'm not that childlish. If you are happy if you can remove one particular site from the external links, then be happy with it. Just FYI, i'm done more for these two games and their communities than MobyGames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.21 (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, i've figured it out. It's not the "fansite" thing, it's the primary content of the fansite. You are a microsoft fan and you dislike the site itself. How couldn't i notice it earlier? Otherwise you would remove everything which is aganist your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.132 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Mate, you hang in there with whatever fantasy you enjoy. Whatever! — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but then what is the explanation of you removing only my site and leave the others, saying it's not your crusade? We've never met, so it cannot be personal, can be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.65 (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- And what is the explanation of you never answering, when i ask, why do you remove only my site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.221 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Mate, you hang in there with whatever fantasy you enjoy. Whatever! — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, i've figured it out. It's not the "fansite" thing, it's the primary content of the fansite. You are a microsoft fan and you dislike the site itself. How couldn't i notice it earlier? Otherwise you would remove everything which is aganist your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.132 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Comparison of smartphones.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.
The Signpost: 27 February 2017
- From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed
- Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education
- Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app
- In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia
- Gallery: A Met montage
- Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers
- Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer
- Featured content: The dominance of articles continues
- Traffic report: Love, football, and politics
Please explain your actions. Sincerely, USS New Jersey (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Already done. It wouldn't stand a chance in a deletion debate. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are wrong. There is a bot which places the Template:Author assumed at old uploads. Why should the image not be from User:Motorhead?--USS New Jersey (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why is my filemove different to previous ones (File:2spark plug viewers.jpg, File:Lysholm screw rotors.jpg)?--USS New Jersey (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) From my observations of DRs. If in a period of time it does survive, we can delete it then. Play it conservatively at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why is my filemove different to previous ones (File:2spark plug viewers.jpg, File:Lysholm screw rotors.jpg)?--USS New Jersey (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm regularly moving files to Commons with throwaway accounts during my worktime. Nobody ever had any objections, so I'm a little bit astonished now.--USS New Jersey (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hardoy Butterfly Chair; Tripolina Chair
RaykN (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Bilinghurst,
WEINBAUM has been greatly contributing to the transition of both the Butterfly and the Tripolina Chair into the 21st century. My controbutions are no promo stuff; without this company both pieces would have been forgotten. If you don't let me add content then please delete at least this link on the French company Airborne.
Thanks
RaykN
Deletion of HDClone
Hello Billinghurst,
someone proposed the deletion of my newly added article, while I prematurely removed the deletion tag. Appearently reverting it to the state with that tag didn't prevent the sudden deletion of my article and didn't restore the 7 day deadline. Therefore I would like to ask you to restore the article and the 7 day deadline or limit its visibily to my user accout until the content fulfills the standard requirements. Regarding the notablility I would like you to consider the following references to the subject of my article over the last 13 years (of course this bare list won't be the missing content of my article).
English:
http://windows7themes.net/en-us/4-steps-to-automatically-backup-your-system-hard-drive-with-hdclone
http://www.trishtech.com/2013/04/create-and-restore-hard-disk-images-with-free-hdclone
http://www.ilovefreesoftware.com/18/windows/system-utils/hdclone-free-utility-to-clone-your-hard-disk.html
https://betanews.com/2011/01/31/tip-clone-or-rescue-your-hard-drive-with-hdclone-4-free-edition
http://files-recovery.blogspot.de/2010/10/hard-disk-copy-with-hdclone.html
http://www.techmixer.com/free-windows-disk-cloning-software-hdclone
http://webtrickz.com/download-hdclone-free-edition-37
http://www.jakeludington.com/downloads/20060224_hdclone.html
—
http://www.topbestalternatives.com/hdclone
http://download.cnet.com/HDClone-Free-Edition/3000-2248_4-10504284.html
http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/
German:
http://hdclone.pro.de
http://www.barrierefreie-webloesungen.de/blog/misc/131204_hdclone.php
http://www.computerwissen.de/hardware/pc-tipps/artikel/festplatten-tipp-mit-hdclone-ziehen-sie-kostenlos-und-komfortabel-auf-eine-groessere-festplatte-um.html
http://www.pc-magazin.de/ratgeber/hdclone-3-9-1027051-6628.html
http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-Downloads-Tuning-System-HDClone-Tipps-Anleitung-5845004.html
http://www.com-magazin.de/news/business-it/hdclone-kann-defragmentierung-on-the-fly-6805.html
http://www.computerwoche.de/a/hdclone-mehr-als-nur-platten-klonen,580481
http://www.tomshardware.de/miray-stellt-festplatten-tool-hdclone-in-version-3-vor,news-11363.html
http://www.chip.de/news/HDClone-2.0-Freeware-hilft-beim-Festplatten-Umzug_13717267.html
Books (international):
Hak Cipta, Langkah Cerdas Mengamankan dan Menyelamatkan Data pada Hard Disk, pages 136-139, isbn 9792914528
https://books.google.de/books?id=27NHwYCZv6EC
Antonio Luís Cardador Cabello, Testeo y verificación de equipos y periféricos microinformáticos, pages 168-176, isbn 8416173540
https://books.google.de/books?id=FLwPBAAAQBAJ
Todd G.Shipley, Art Bowker, Investigating Internet Crimes: An Introduction to Solving Crimes in Cyberspace, page 163, isbn 0124079296
https://books.google.de/books?id=yXCtAAAAQBAJ
Best regards! Jo (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo2root: Try taking it through draft: namespace, see Wikipedia:Drafts — billinghurst sDrewth
- @Billinghurst: Hello Billinghurst, Thank you very much for that pointer. — Jo (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
ipblock-exempt
Hi, Billinghurst.
I added some established angolan users from Portuguese projects to the global-ipblock-exempt group some days ago, due to the global blocks related to the Angola-Facebook case.
However, as you may know, this permission does not allow users to bypass local range blocks, and it seems there are some of these blocks implemented locally over here. They are complaining that they are usually caught up in an autoblock not intended for them, from time to time (example) RadiX∞ 12:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
So could you kindly add the above mentioned users to the local ipblock-exempt group?
Thanks. RadiX∞ 12:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hardoy Butterfly Chair; Tripolina Chair
RaykN (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hm, no reaction. Can you please anwer?
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest follow the guidance. Also to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Draft:European Mentoring and Coaching Council AfC revert
Hi, Billinghurst, I am the editor that accepted the AfC of Draft:European Mentoring and Coaching Council which I see you have reverted today. I am at the end of my very first week reviewing AfC submissions, so would appreciate coaching in what I should have handled differently in this instance. I am presuming that your view is that it fails WP:NCORP? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- My view is that it is not yet ready for main ns. Push back firmly on users to make a quality product, especially where their is a vested/conflict of interest (check for crosswiki editing for same article). For me a lead paragraph should need no referencing, it should just be a summation component for the article. So when I see 8 refs for a lead sentence and they are all press release type articles, my nose wrinkles with 'not ready', then when the ref list is longer the article itself that should indicate that something is out of kilter — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- These sound like sound principles for producing a good article, but it seems they go beyond the AfC review process? Where in the flowchart would this page get declined? Wouldn't accept, but tag, be the way to go? Thanks :) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- AfC is more than sheer binary decisions. When there is greyness in multiples of those factors never be afraid to push back and make them the contributor do the work, especially with the waft of CoI. To me multiple maybes = declined, or maybe more accurately "not yet". There is nothing urgent here, if it is notable, it will still be notable in a month. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- These sound like sound principles for producing a good article, but it seems they go beyond the AfC review process? Where in the flowchart would this page get declined? Wouldn't accept, but tag, be the way to go? Thanks :) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
New page "European Mentoring and Coaching Council"
I have added many notability related citations and references. Could you look at the Draft page and see if it can be moved from "Draft" status? many thanks185.62.85.43 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC) I just read and acted upon your suggestion above e.g. removing press release types of citations etc.185.62.85.43 (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Thanks for reverting vandalism on the Govt of India page ⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 06:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC) |
Deleted mention of higher education ranking
Hi! I had originally added the ranking to List of universities in the Netherlands after reading about it in both Forbes and Le Monde. I found it noteworthy and upon further inspection, there are lots of other newspapers reporting on it. Linking one of the articles instead would be an option but it doesn't seem very WP to cite a source that cites a source. I would like to see it re-added but want to make sure this doesn't inadvertently get flagged again. -- 178.3.13.186 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- That it was mentioned would not make it a section of an article with its own sub-heading. I suggest you pop over to Wikipedia:Teahouse and seek guidance from that team. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 June 2017
- From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!
- News and notes: Global Elections
- Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis
- Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured
- In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?
- Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press
- Technology report: Tech news catch-up
- Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10
The Signpost: 23 June 2017
- News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)
- In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
- Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take
- Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues
- Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth
- Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all
Speedy deletion nomination of Aubrey Graham
Hello Billinghurst,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Aubrey Graham for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
The Signpost: 15 July 2017
- News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes
- Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more
- In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce
- Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers
- Gallery: A mix of patterns
- Humour: The Infobox Game
- Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday
- Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up
The Signpost: 5 August 2017
- Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality
- WikiProject report: Comic relief
- In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity
- Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list
- Featured content: Everywhere in the lead
- Technology report: Introducing TechCom
- Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs
The Signpost: 6 September 2017
- From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?
- News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments
- Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies
- Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts
- Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future
- Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube
- Technology report: Latest tech news
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up
- Humour: Bots
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for signing up to to the Admin confidence survey. Could you please either enable your email in Preferences or send me your email address? Thanks, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @SPoore (WMF): Hi Sydney. Turned it on, and I don't even remember turning it off. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 September 2017
- News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL
- Humour: Chickenz
- Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe
- Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications
- Gallery: Chicken mania
- Traffic report: Fights and frights
- Featured content: Flying high
Need to fix template:cite DNB to take case statement to allow for supplement & 2ndsupp to allow for DNB00/DNB01/DNB12 refs. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 October 2017
- News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!
- Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables
- Humour: Guys named Ralph
- In the media: Facebook and poetry
- Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK
- Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment
Hi, I am wondering if you could return this page or send me the page content, so I can fix the parts which caused the article deletion. I now that I should contact the user who deleted it, but User:Fuhghettaboutit is not active for over a week. I hope you could help me, thanks. --Semso98 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Semso98: I think that the courtesy thing would for you to try there first, and, then if unsuccessful, ask someone else (happy to consider at that point). It doesn't seem urgent that trying and waiting is going to set the world back. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst:, ok, thanks. I will try there first. --Semso98 (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 November 2017
- News and notes: Cons, cons, cons
- Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely
- Technology report: Searching and surveying
- Interview: A featured article centurion
- WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects
- In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution
- Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate
- Featured content: We will remember them
- Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Billinghurst. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public ___domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
Dochvetlh vISoplaHbe’.Happy First Edit Day
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, Nat965 (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Nat965: Seems doubtful to me that, but there you go. Might be ten years since someone created my user page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- There have been a few edits xwiki since, and lots of admin actions. Fun, eh? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
A request
Hallo Billinghurst, a de-wiki User User talk:Tonialsa has problems with another user who know is trying to hound him arround differend language versions, so on en-wiki and commons. Please could you have a look at his disk. an protect the sides. Thx --Itti (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)