User talk:Chetsford/Archive 40

==Disambiguation link notification for February 1 ==

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William N. Salin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red-tailed hawk · Robertsky
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ameliorate! · Ancheta Wis · Anthony Bradbury (deceased) · Cobi · Ev · Moondyne · Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Worm That Turned



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news
 * Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size.

Arbitration
 * Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
 * Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
 * Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
 * The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with Unreferenced. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

James Townsend DYK
Hi. Do you want to still go through with the nomination? At 1,732 bytes after the split it's still eligible, but there are still some minor content issues that need addressing. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Slavic Legion
As noted on the assessment page, I left the bot's start assessment as the military history project assessment. I changed b1, referencing to yes because it meets the criteria for text now in the article. I left b2 as no but not because of accuracy but because of length. I could be persuaded that there is little if anything else to be said about this so b2 could be changed to yes. (I have quite a few books about World War I but I doubt any of them would cover this topic.) That leaves b3, structure as no since it is just a few paragraphs without any sections. That leaves the asssessment at start even if b2 were changed. b4 is met and the infobox suffices for b5. Let me know if you are convinced no more can reasonably be written about this subject and I will change b2 to yes. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Donner60 - thanks very much for your assessment. Start is what I would have given it, too. It's very possible there's more information about this topic out there but I probably won't do much more with it myself, honestly. Anyway, thanks again - I appreciate your time. Chetsford (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for William N. Salin
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sdkb · The Night Watch
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg East718 · Isabelle Belato · Mzajac · Staecker · Stan Shebs · Sugarfish · Tamzin



Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SilkTork

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
 * Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news
 * The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
 * Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for James Townsend (abolitionist)
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1937 dispute between Czechoslovakia and Portugal
Hello! Your submission of 1937 dispute between Czechoslovakia and Portugal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cielquiparle (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Slavic Legion
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:House of Arnstein
Hi! I'm the creator of the draft about the German family House of Arnstein. I saw that you reviewed it very quickly, despite not positively, and I think I understood the reason: lack of specific sources. Well, I assumed that you took interest on the matter, and because of that you reviewed it more quickly? Sorry if I'm wrong. Anyway, given your fast review, can you give it another shot? I've already added specific sources. Thank you in advance! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Mhmrodrigues - I just looked at the first four sources in the list of references which includes user-generated ancestry sites, a personal blog, an anonymous and questionable "data base [sic] of the titled nobility in Europe", and the German Wikipedia. None of these are WP:RS, I'm afraid. The sources you've added since my last review are in German, which is fine, but I'm afraid my German isn't good enough to properly evaluate them so someone else will have to do so. Best - Chetsford (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Thank you for your effort, and sorry for the late response. It's been one week since your answer, and two weeks since your first review. I'm thinking... if it wouldn't be better dropping the draft and publish the page by myself? How can I drop this draft? I would prefer to create the page myself. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)