User:The ed17/Archives/102

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
 * 2) DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * 3) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
 * 4) For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
 * 5) Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
 * 6) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

The Signpost: 05 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"no the needed"
"no the needed": maybe not in AmEng, or informal English, or lazy journalese, but in good British English the definite article certainly is needed. If no-one has picked up on the error by the time you return, perhaps you could replace what jars by its absence? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Although this neat usage when describing professional positions/roles probably originated in the US, it's being adopted more widely (even in the UK). I like it. PS, no hyphen for "no one". :-) Tony   (talk)  09:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in good Britsh English: in Britain the lack of article is still sloppy or journalese - not decent encyclopaedic writing by any stretch. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since been put back in by a third party. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well this turned into an awfully large storm in a teacup. It's perfectly fine in BrEng as well, as Tony notes, but YM clearly V. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not in good BrEng: fine in informal use or in lax journalese, but we should be aiming for higher standards than that on the front page of an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems more like a rear-guard action against a changing language. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really: good, formal written English has always been different from informal or spoken variants. The use of the definite article has always been part of that. The use fluctuates in informal English, and it always has. Nothing has changed, except perhaps the ignorance of some as to what is correct or not, but it has always been so. The POV of Americans/Aussies/Singaporees (but not, I seem to remember Indians) will always differ on the use as its not something they tend to use in either formal or informal language. – SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Correct" in the eyes of who? It's in many ways a measure of personal preference, as you yourself have stated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That quote in no way supports why you claim I've said: I've essemtially said the editor in question can think,what they like about formal English, but they just don't understand what they are talking about. My edit summary to them at the time is applicable to me now: enough time spent where people are in POV-pushing mode, not listening or understanding mode. – SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't delete redirects
Deletion of non-incorrect redirects doesn't fall under WP:G6 as far as I can see, does it?--Nemo 19:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What redirect are we talking about? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This one, I think. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ., where are the incoming links? I wasn't aware there were any, and there certainly shouldn't be. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2016
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 12:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you pulling my leg
Hi, Ed. Are you pulling my leg? LOL. Kindly show me the boldness or controversy in an edit like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Rights_Without_Liberation&diff=prev&oldid=725152892 this] and the need to revert it. Sheesh. Take it line by line if you must. Cheers! 23:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly it's bold and controversial—have you seen 's reaction? Please pay attention to what he's trying to tell you. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ed; I'm afraid this broad issue has now had to be raised at AN/I. You are mentioned, though not by name. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented. What a FUBARed thread. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wasn't hopeful that the thread would produce anything of value, but I was out of options. (No, sorry, I wasn't; I should have started a RfC! How silly of me.) I've disengaged at this time, but I've no idea what options I have yet if the user in question continues with the same nonsense. Block self and give her/him a barnstar, probably. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, clearly you should have known what the right place was to bring your problem. Good lord, who wouldn't know where to bring their problem? It's all so blindingly obvious. Not. TBH, I would have gone to ANI as well. I wouldn't know any better. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All of this depends on this being a "content dispute", which, of course, it isn't. I'm also struck by the weird double-standards; on the one hand, now that I've left the thread, people have taken to chastising me for calling for a block. Someone (who, coincidentally, has made clear that they are unwilling to discuss or defend this claim) calls for me to be blocked, and they have people joking about supporting them at RfA. I don't know what I was hoping for, but this is actually probably worse than I was expecting. Are people getting a kick out of this? It's probably the most Wikipedia-related stress I've had in years. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, calling for a block was a bit strong. But to rake you over the coals for it, nice and slowly so you're toasted on every side, is entirely disproportionate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that this is broadly agreed at this time, so I'm happy to concede that. My logic was that (s)he had received multiple warnings but continued with the problematic behaviour regardless; I'm happy enough if this doesn't end in a block but that the user recognises the problematic nature of their edits and backs off. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:EW
Hello. I'm not going back to that ANI thread, but I just couldn't ignore part of your comments. So talking about J's edit warring, Mandruss, may be true but it's hardly the point. That statement is in direct opposition to the statement in WP:EW:An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Emphasis added. According to you and others, it's "no defense" except when it is. In my world, that's a recipe for chaos and bitter resentment between the editors who use it as a defense and get blocked per WP:EW policy, and those who use it as a defense and don't get blocked. And, lo and behold, that's exactly what we have. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not making excuses for the edit histories in question, . What I'm saying is that you placed an undue focus on the edit warring over the actual content and common editorial guidelines. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and I disagree with it, and I explained my rationale for disagreeing with it. You don't seem to understand what I just said, or don't want to. But no need to continue, as I don't see anything constructive coming of it. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Thank you for your comments—we disagree here, but I'm not holding any grudges against you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 17, April-May 2016 by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
 * Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
 * New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Suggestion
I noticed you voted "keep" at Template:Vela class submarines and Template:Shishumar class submarines. If your opinion is the same for Template:Kalvari class submarines, you might want to add that there. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That suggestion of yours looks a lot like canvassing. Surely that's not what you meant to do. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only is canvassing not what I meant to do, it is also provable not canvassing. 1. I posted only on this editor's talkpage 2. I have not expressed my personal opinion on the issue (nor will I) As a matter of fact, it doesn't even look like canvassing, but like a friendly reminder of something that this editor likely didn't notice or forget. Any other assumption violated WP:AGF. Even the above comment comes dangerously close to that. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dunno about trouting Chris for that - I read it as canvassing, for one. Seems eminently reasonable to read the message as "if you still think these templates should be kept, vote 'keep' at this discussion." A better way for you to have worded it would have been "If you still have an opinion on these sorts of templates, you might comment there". Or better yet, just post a notice at the WT:SHIPS page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By saying "have an opinion on these sorts of templates" would be funny, since I understand very well what his opinion would be. So I said it clearly. That is not canvassing! (I respect how you read it, but that still doesn't make it so.) And that is in addition to the other reasons why this is clearly not canvassing, ass stated above. Whatever, I think we all understand each other. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2016
Editing News #2—2016 Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

It's quick and easy to insert a references list.

Place the cursor where you want to display the references list (usually at the bottom of the page). Open the "" menu and click the "" icon (three books).

If you are using several groups of references, which is relatively rare, you will have the opportunity to specify the group. If you do that, then only the references that belong to the specified group will be displayed in this list of references.

Finally, click "" in the dialog to insert the. This list will change as you add more footnotes to the page.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Arabic and Indic scripts, and adapting the visual editor to the needs of the Wikivoyages and Wikisources.

Recent changes
The visual editor is now available to all users at most Wikivoyages. It was also enabled for all contributors at the French Wikinews.

The single edit tab feature combines the "" and "" tabs into a single "" tab. It has been deployed to several Wikipedias, including Hungarian, Polish, English and Japanese Wikipedias, as well as to all Wikivoyages. At these wikis, you can change your settings for this feature in the "" tab of Special:Preferences. The team is now reviewing the feedback and considering ways to improve the design before rolling it out to more people.

Future changes
The "" button will say "". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including: Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Urdu, Persian, Bengali, Assamese, Aramaic and others.

The team is working with the volunteer developers who power Wikisource to provide the visual editor there, for opt-in testing right now and eventually for all users. (T138966)

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. It will look like the visual editor, and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices around September 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together
If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready.
 * Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor?  Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.
 * Learn how to improve the "automagical" citoid referencing system in the visual editor, by creating Zotero translators for popular sources in your language! Watch the Tech Talk by Sebastian Karcher for more information.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 21:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

38th Welsh FAC
Hey Ed,

Meant to ask this of you a few days ago, but I didn't have the time. There have been no further comments on the review. Still willing to give the article the once over?

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Crap,, I'm just seeing this. Will try to get to ASAP. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Its all good, thanks for the help in trying to get this to the front page! Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)