User talk:J Milburn/archive46

Request for Help with Current FAC
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC? I would be more than happy to review anything in return for your help. Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I have a lot going on at the moment, but I had clocked your FAC as an interesting one; I'll do my best to drop by! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I apologize for the random message. I hope that you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I managed to find some time to have a look through; it's a nice little article, and I've left a few comments on the review page. I normally don't do this, but, since you asked, I do have a FAC languishing low down in the queue: Featured article candidates/The Bill (Inside No. 9)/archive1. No pressure at all, but if you have time, I'd appreciate any comments! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help! I will definitely do a review on your FAC either by the end of today or tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

John/Eleanor Rykener
Hi J Milburn, I hope you're well. I just wanted to say a big thank you for the copyediting you've done on this, it's really appreciated. However: I must apologise too, as I was adding stuff to it myself over a period of a few hours this afternoon, and when I saved it, it / I over-wrote your edits (I think). I can't do anything about it now, as I'm stepping away from the PC—it's rather dispiriting really—but I'll redo all your edits tomorrow AM, UTC. Hope that's OK with you. Sorry and thanks again! Cheers, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 17:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; sorry for creating that work for you! It's a great topic, and I'm sure you'll find success at FAC at some point; it just may not be this time around. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I may have misunderstood, but I'm sure I was effectively advised to go straight to FAC. Most (read= totally) irritating. If I'd done it off my own back I'd take the flak; but. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 18:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As it goes, I've redone your edits, and also all the WP:LQ; but, as I sad, "I've probably missed one" :)   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 19:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a bad decision to send it to FAC, and it's far from impossible that'd pass this around, in my view! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

John/Eleanor Rykener
Which you had some hand in commenting on previously is now at PR; if you still believe it's a worthy candidate for future promotion, please feel free to look in. If you know anyone else who may be interested in medieval transvestite-prostitutes, also feel free to invite them. Take care! Cheers, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I'll be sure to drop by. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that 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; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Gogo Dodo
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus that the promising draft template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news
 * Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
 * Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
 * IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous
 * Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Request FA mentoring
Hi Josh! We haven't met before, but I found your name on the FA mentoring page and I am hoping you will be willing to take a look at Biblical criticism and decide to help me improve it to FA status. I have only been on Wikipedia about a year, this is my first GA article and my first attempt at FA. I'm guessing I am going to need a lot of help. :-) I look forward to hearing from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a great topic, and I would hope it would get a lot of the regulars at FAC interested. It's a big one, though! I'd be happy to come on board as a "mentor" and (so far as I'm able) guide you towards where you need to be for FAC. I don't have time to read every word right now, but I'll offer a few initial thoughts as a stop-gap:
 * Beware short (i.e., 1-2 line) paragraphs. They frustrate a lot of reviewers, and give the impression that parts of the article are underdeveloped.
 * You seem to be citing a lot of handbooks and other scholarly collections. I think they're great sources for a topic like this, but you should probably be citing the chapter, rather than the volume as a whole. You do this a few times (an aside: I wouldn't include "chapter 3" or whatever in the title) but not other times. Reviewers at FAC (myself included) can be real sticklers for consistency in citation styles! Beware inconsistency... I spotted "David L. Barr, review of A. K. M. Adam (ed.), Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, 2000", for example!
 * A few of the pictures you're using towards the bottom of the article aren't great. A lot of the others are lacking clear sourcing information. Again, this is the kind of thing that seems such a minor issue, but can sink a nomination. Examples: File:Gutenberg Bible.jpg is probably easily fixable. File:Rudolf Bultmann Portrait.jpg and File:DBWallaceHeadShot 2004.jpg are very suspicious; how confident are we of the providence? File:Julius Wellhausen 02.jpg doesn't have any information about the original author or publication, which might be important for verifying the PD claim; and the PD claim of File:Marie-Joseph Lagrange.jpg could perhaps be better justified.. (I won't be a good help with this, but perhaps the diagrams should be in an accessible format - i.e., text. See WP:ACCESS.) I think it might be easier for you to just replace a lot of the images with better sourced ones. The lead image of Albert Schweitzer is great, and it's from the Deutsches Bundesarchiv; while there may or may not be question marks there, I don't think it'll be challenged at FAC. You should be aiming to include lots of decent pictures, but the sourcing and free-use claim on them has to be stellar!


 * Those are just a few opening picky comments. I'll make time over the next week or so to take a much closer look. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you thank you! I love your picky comments!  There is no such thing as too picky I don't think!  I took over this article in May and have rewritten most of it.  During the GA review, we discovered much of what had been previously done was plagiarized.  That was a shock for me!  I hadn't rewritten it because I thought it was well enough written to keep--it was good because it was professionally done--and stolen! As a result, I went through the entire article and, I thought, eliminated all previous content, but apparently there are still some stray references--at least, I don't recognize the David L. Barr review, so I think it's a holdover, and that is also why it is a not like my citation style. I will find and replace.
 * I will go through and fix short paragraphs. My natural tendency is to run on--and on... so I probably went in the other direction too much trying to make things more concise.
 * I am a little bit at sea about images. These are all from Wikimedia commons, and all I know to do is click the 'use in Wiki button' and copy paste... Beyond that is beyond my skill and knowledge level which is, sort of, about kindergarten level...maybe that high.  :-)  I will read anything you tell me to read and I will do anything you instruct me to do--if I can figure out what the heck you are talking about. I apologize, but I did not understand a single thing in that paragraph beyond there's something wrong with the pictures. If you can give kindergarten level instruction, I will do the work--or if you can give me a page to read, I can probably figure out what language you are speaking and go from there.
 * I am going to read Access now. Thank you again. Please feel free to pick away! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Josh, you must be looking at the old version--I don't have a picture of Schweitzer anymore. My GA reviewer had a problem with it so it's gone. I think I fixed the two sentence paragraph problem, starting on references next. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Super-quick reply: I mentioned the Schweitzer image as an example of one that you could add to replace current images, but maybe if the GA reviewer wasn't happy, I was too optimistic about it. I think it will be worth spending some time with the images, but it might be easier if I do the legwork there. And small paragraphs are a good thing, but very short paragraphs don't look good. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I need to learn this stuff about images! It can't be that difficult...right? I can't find that David Barr reference. I think I have already removed and replaced it in the current version.  I continued to work on the article after passing the GA because I knew it still needed polishing.  My GA reviewer--who was awesome btw--had about a half dozen references he thought were iffy but passed the article for GA anyway.  But since he had informed me--I couldn't just leave it--right?  I went ahead and tried to continue to address those issues after the approval.  I'm guessing you are looking at the version the GA reviewer archived and that the questionable reference has since been removed/replaced. Either that or I am just missing it repeatedly.  Either one is possible I suppose!  Josh I am so glad of your response and so very thankful for your help.  If I say thank you every time I write for a little while, please don't let it annoy you!  Right now I feel like I can't say thank you enough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick question: do I need those chapter numbers when there are page numbers already? Right now, the only references without page numbers are journal articles, web sites, etc. --all books have page numbers--but not chapters.  If they need both, I can go back through and do that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One more quick question. :-) When you get a chance to read more deeply, I am somewhat concerned about the content directly under "New Testament authenticity and the Historical Jesus'. That paragraph there lists scholars with four different views--which is fine in itself--except I don't specifically discuss or mention those particular views again. I did not want to enter the swamp of attempting to evaluate them, but at the same time I wanted to make it clear there are wildly differing views.  This is biblical criticism so what I talk about is method--which isn't mentioned in that first paragraph at all!  So--is that screwed up or not?
 * I'm also thinking of removing "the developing tradition" from that section entirely and maybe moving its contents somewhere else. It was a subsection already present when I got the article but I am thinking it doesn't really belong there at all.  It kind of interrupts.  At least that's what makes me uncomfortable about it--what do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * On chapter numbers: I don't think we need chapter numbers, I think we need chapter names. So here's a really nicely formatted example I've borrowed from Heathenism (new religious movement), a strong article on religious scholarship that I reviewed at GAC and then again at FAC:
 * There are a few references in the article currently that are formatted roughly like that (I note that the article's author adds "(ed.)", which a lot of editors wouldn't.) You definitely don't need chapter names for monographs, textbooks and the like; just handbooks, sourcebooks, anthologies, etc. Muti-authored edited works! (And I swear the Barr reference is still there; ctrl-F Barr! That was just an example source, though. I could pick out lots, but we can save that until I've had a proper look through the article.) I'll start a talk-page section for more specific comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm with you now! I will go through and find those--and ctrl-F Barr! Thank you! I didn't know I could do that!  That is handy!  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will work on bringing the references up to snuff. I can't get ctrl-F Barr to do anything.  I think my computer is laughing at me. :-) I have a mac does that matter?  They laugh louder--right?  I will find it the old-fashioned way.  Oh--and I added one sentence back in the lead to cover philosophy--see if you hate it as much as you did 'scientific thinking.' :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm with you now! I will go through and find those--and ctrl-F Barr! Thank you! I didn't know I could do that!  That is handy!  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will work on bringing the references up to snuff. I can't get ctrl-F Barr to do anything.  I think my computer is laughing at me. :-) I have a mac does that matter?  They laugh louder--right?  I will find it the old-fashioned way.  Oh--and I added one sentence back in the lead to cover philosophy--see if you hate it as much as you did 'scientific thinking.' :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

On those references, I used multiple chapters out of those anthologies--what should I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can have separate footnotes for each chapter in the bibliography, in the same way you would have separate entries for articles in the same journal issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a ref list but not a bibliography per sé. I have seen bibliographies that are alphabetized and they look great but I looked up bibliographies and all I could find were article pages that are also bibliographies. I know the info is out there somewhere but finding stuff like this on Wiki is often as much work as the work--if you know what I mean.  So I have inline citations, and when I add a chapter title to the first one it's fine--but if I attempt to add another chapter title it freaks and tells me I have the reference defined multiple ways--which of course I do.  So I am going through one at a time changing the reference name to reflect the different chapter names and finding them manually and changing them manually--as a friend said to me recently, it's like building an interstate by digging one shovel full of dirt at a time. But that's what I've got. I posted the question (footnotes) at the Teahouse.  So far no joy. So you might as well go do something else for a bit.  This is going to take awhile.  If I live long enough I will let you know when I am done. Take care.  It was nice knowing you...  :-)
 * Have gotten some help from the Teahouse--I may survive after all... Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Cortinarius caperatus/archive1
Err...guess this you forgot about? (nudge) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'll look into it soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No dramas -  figured you must have been busy...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday (restorer)
Hey Josh, just wondering if you might consider taking another look at this article at its FAC nomination? I hesitate to ask, but your GA review and related edits were quite thorough, and the article is at a point where I think it's essentially complete. I've also taken a close look at consistency among references, your remaining point at the GA review, both before and during FAC. Of course, no worries if you have other things on your plate! Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC) (BTW, the timing of the below Four Award is an unrelated coincidence; just happened to check WP:Four Award after making the Doubleday post.) --Usernameunique (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I had seen the nomination and do hope to find some time for another look, but no promises. I was pleased to see the introduction of some more recent scholarship! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Josh, and of course no worries if you don't get to it. As you say, the more recent scholarship is a plus, especially about Doubleday's work on the Nimrud bowls; hadn't seen mention of that before. Most of the rest of the additions since your review just fill in details, though finding both the auction catalog for his library and his headstone were quite fun. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi Josh, it's been a few days since I've heard from you--not long in the real world--I know, but it seems long when you don't know what's going on! :-) I Just need to know if I should keep waiting. I am ready to be done with 'Biblical criticism' and can try someone else if you prefer! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I know I've not been around much. My plan was to finish reading though the article (including a second read-through of the lead); go through the references with a fine-toothed comb; and then recommend taking this to peer review with some messages to a few potentially interested editors. I'll hopefully have some time tomorrow to spend with the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanx Josh. I will look forward to hearing from you then. Take care! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Josh what would you think of going ahead with that peer review? Let them find what they find and we'll fix it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. I'll drop a line to a few editors I know who may be interested once it's up and running. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not up? What's not up and running? I don't understand. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The peer review page; if you're looking for a review, you can nominate it by following the instructions here. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In the template that is supposed to be put at the top of the page it has "tlsx"--what is that? Am I supposed to put the page title there?  I'm sure this is a stupid question but most of this coding stuff is jibberish to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, I'm afraid. I've added the template to the article talk page; click the "philosophy and religion" link, fill it out, and save the page. Try to do it all in one edit! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay! I thought you wanted me to do that!  I went to the review page and was trying to figure out how to post that template myself!  I did follow the instructions and the page is now saved.  I didn't specify what kind of comments--I'll take anything! Keep your fingers crossed we get some good info! Thanx Josh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I'm off to bed now, but I'll have a think about who to contact and reach out tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sleep well! Sweet dreams and no bed bugs and all that stuff! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Josh! I have a question. The peer review page said don't make changes to the article after it's been posted here because it will move it off the list. Someone went through with the citation bot and put in a bunch of url's but it also made a change in one citation that created a problem. I had to fix it, so I did do something to the article. Have I screwed anything up? There's also some new info I wanted to put into text criticism--just a sentence--can I not do that now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you've misinterpreted; the recommendation is to not make changes to the peer review page, as that will give the impression that you have received reviews. Feel free to keep working on the article! (It's not the end of the world if you edit the peer review page anyway, and this all becomes null and void after someone else edits it anyway.) Josh Milburn (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh good! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study
Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, I am working with Wikimedia’s Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticism
Hi Josh, hope you are well. I had a couple questions if you have time. Gerda Arendt said something about not having templates, and I don't know what she's talking about. Since I have already looked stupid to you several times, I thought I could keep that to a minimum with other people by asking you... :-) I also wanted to know if you thought having a timeline would improve this page.  I've never done one but I can probably figure it out.  Is the timeline actually another page with links in the article or does it show up on the article page?  Or do you know?  I guess I could just try it and see! I probably won't do anything before getting your input though. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think much of timelines, so my (very personal!) advice would be to not bother spending your time with them! As for templates: Gerda is talking about things like ✅ (i.e., done) that you are using on the peer review page; some reviewers don't like them on review pages, so they are best avoided at PR and especially FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way: It's great that Gerda has dropped by. She's very experienced with FAC, and I'm sure her advice will be invaluable. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OH! Wow! Okay then! OK, no templates and no timelines!  (I love timelines!)  Yes, Gerda is not only a great editor, she seems like an amazing person as well.  Josh, I had such a miserable time in my first six months on Wikipedia that finding kind and helpful Wikipedians like you and Gerda almost makes me weep. If I fall all over myself expressing gratitude, please forgive me, but so far I am still being surprised and touched by the goodness I am now also finding here. Gerda's advice will be wonderful, and I am glad of it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the references little by little, the alt texts on the images are complete, and I think the lead is pretty good (took a comment of Gerda's and made a couple changes and I like it), but we haven't done anything on the body in 9 days--and yes I am counting! :-) I know you have a life--I apparently have none--no life--beyond Biblical criticim -- with which I am obsessed. I freely admit. I either have to finish this or someone will have to shoot me... Please come back!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jen; yes, the "social" or "interactive" time on Wikipedia can be very, very rewarding. For years, I was heavily involved in the WikiCup, and I try to remain active as a reviewer at good article candidates and featured article candidates. I'm pleased to see that steady progress is being made. I'll aim to be back soon to have a close look at some of the article's later sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Josh! I have really been struggling to improve that form criticism section. It has been very difficult. The history section has now been reviewed three separate times--and is the better for it. Instead of a list of disconnected facts, it has a little bit more of a narrative to it making it more readable and less of a drag to get through--(though it's still a little tedious). I think the lead is about perfect now, if I do say so myself. :-) I have looked up all the other definitions of biblical criticism on the internet and I think this is the best and most accurate and concise of them all. It says 'It is..." it does, this is how, and this is the goal--all in 5 sentences. It helps me to know I have each claim sourced from those who have actually written about these things from within the field, but for the reader who doesn't know any of that, it is still easy to follow and understand. I will not be surprised if over time this becomes the standard definition. HAH!  :-) And you were the one who required it of me. So well done on you. I have worked throughout the article to tone down all my enthusiasms--even if I found it in a source. :-)  I don't believe there are any claims that aren't consensus claims by those in the field. I have gone through all the references once and found more issues than I would have dreamed were there--so I will be sure and go through them all a second time as well.  I have alt-texts in the pics now.  Gerda is busy with translating something big she said, but she has still made the effort to make some observations anyway.  Pretty awesome huh?  This experience is making a permanent impact on how I do Wikipedia which, I think, is a very good thing. Better editors make for a better and greater Wikipedia.  Thank you for helping me become a better editor.  I hope you can find the time to come back and finish up this project with me because--whatever others do or don't do--your input is invaluable.  Hopes things are well with you, Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I've been a little absent, but I have been watching developments with the article; though I've been hands off, it's great to see that the article is still making improvements! I will definitely make it to the article at some point this weekend. Hopefully we can get a few more voices at the PR, as well- sometimes deep reviews at PR can mean you can start your FAC with a few supports from respected editors, and then the FAC passes like a breeze. (I think that might be a little much to ask for for your first FAC, especially on such a big topic, but I'm sure you see my point!) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's okay! I'm not fussing, I do understand, I am just trying to keep you clued in, and keep you remembering you really are important--and I do take your point exactly--which is why you really are important!  Thank god that sentence isn't in the article! :-) If this article makes FA its first time out of the gate Josh, that is going to be as much your doing as mine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Another little job for you when you find a few minutes, by the way: Take a look at the first reading section and the external links section. Further reading is great for other valuable sources that readers may find useful, but 1) The formatting should be immaculate; 2) There shouldn't be too much; 3) Reviewers will sometimes ask something like "if that's so good, how come you haven't incorporated it into the article?", so do have a think about that. External links should be kept to a minimum (I'd say that five would be pushing it!), and should only be things that readers might actually find useful. Try to keep the formatting very simple. So, maybe it'd be something like . With both the further reading and the external links, don't be nervous to trim mercilessly. Once you've had a go over them, let me know and I'll have a look and perhaps play around with the formatting a little. Again, this is the kind of silly stuff that could end up holding up a FAC, so it's worth sorting it now! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * These two sections are entirely leftovers from the original article. I have never done one of these on anything I have worked on so I will look forward to learning all about this.  Something else to tuck under my Wikipedia know-how belt! :-)  I will do my best  Thank you so much!  I love it when you show up and give me assignments!  This makes me very happy.  I have to teach this weekend, but I am already completely prepared, so I will have time to devote all my attention to this.  Thank you Josh! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sro23
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
 * Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news
 * The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

FA nomination
It's done! I am afraid I have completely lost my mind and did this too soon and now I am wringing my hands--but it was time for me to sink or swim really--you did all you could for me. Now we will see how badly they shred me. I have a strong heart! Wish me luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I owe you about ten thank yous I think! Again--I thought the references were perfect--I swear they will be the death of me. This is so exasperating!  I am honestly trying to be careful--do I have a mental block?!?  I think maybe I am not detail oriented enough, so I need to pay more attention--even when I really think I am paying attention!  You saved me again Josh and there just aren't enough thank you's--I keep saying the same thing over and over--maybe you are due a dancing telegram--[] :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's always a little more to do! I'll keep tapping away at the article in spare minutes, and leaving notes on the talk page for things for you to look into. I'm watching the review closely, too. I'm sure it'll be a great learning experience, and, I hope, enjoyable! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Josh if you know anyone to ping about taking a look at the article--it might be a good time. There has been no activity on the nomination at all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These things can take time. Consider dropping a line (make sure it's neutrally worded!) on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, as well as notifying (again, with neutral wording) your peer reviewers and GA reviewer(s). You could also ask them if they can think of anyone to invite. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And we're off! Some recommendations: Try to make your responses clear and to-the-point. I recommend responding directly below each bullet rather than under the whole comment (but do not strike out, collapse, or otherwise modify people's comments, and do not use template responses, like ✅). Be thankful/appreciative of people's comments (we're all volunteers, after all!). Don't be scared to hold your ground if a recommendation is not a good one (though explaining why you haven't made a change is important). If someone asks about the reliability of a source or the provenance of an image, you don't have to just defend the source/image; simply replacing it with a better one is often a good solution. And good luck! I'll be watching and helping out where I can. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What?! Someone's there? I will demonstrate a gratitude I genuinely feel Josh, I promise! I will do all as you say! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Josh, would you mind taking a look at the discussion about 'numbers at the beginning of a sentence' here [] and tell me what I should do. Have I answered sufficiently? Should I make the change anyway? The Chicago manual of style and the MLA and everyone else says I'm right, but they say Wikipedia doesn't have that rule and that trumps everything else. Maybe I should just rewrite the sentence? I've tried to do what's been asked about images but it looks like I am going to end up losing five of them. I can't find the material requested. I have sent out questions to the people who posted the pics but haven't heard back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind! I just rewrote the sentence so it is no longer an issue. I have found three usable photos I believe. We'll see what that reviewer says. Oh, and Josh?  Thank God you had me do those refs over and over! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is one 'oppose' enough to sink the FAC? The first commenter has been great, and the one about images has been helpful--and I think I have done all she said needed doing. But the one who said he didn't like my prose because I don't use "that" as much as he likes has not come back. I made all the other changes he mentioned and explained that I do follow the rules about using 'that,' but he has not returned to comment. Josh, I am sure as someone who works in academia, you know quite well the word 'that' should be left out of a sentence if it is intelligible without it. I feel caught between a rock and a hard-place here with no way to satisfy this: he says the prose is "unprofessional" in places, yet he wants me to insert multiple "thats" in sentences where no professional would ever do so. Is there anything I can do? Am I just screwed? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (watching:) some like the power an "oppose" gives. One of my FACs went through with an oppose, another didn't - it's not black and white, the delegates can look at how valid an oppose is, and if it's only a matter of style that shouldn't cause a big problem. Also: if the first round isn't successful, you can always be back. We have a fourth round to be reviewed, Bulgaria, and perhaps comment there, to get more FA feeling (and your name known among the regulars) ;) - The glorious thing about FA reviewing is that you can pick what you want to comment, no obligation to look at the whole thing (as GA reviewing is, and therefore not for me, - couldn't be fair to the prose aspect). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may remember [that] we clashed over the use of that when I first started editing the article; I was in favour of more thats than you were. As Gerda says, opposes can be a real problem, but it's not necessarily going to sink the entire nomination. If you have dealt with everything that the user has suggested and they haven't come back (give them a few days!) you could consider dropping them a quick and polite note on their talk page. Try not be combative or berate opposers, though; that doesn't come across well. (And as Gerda says, chipping in at a few other nominations can be very helpful, both for learning the ropes - FAC norms, expectations, processes, etc. - and for bringing in reviewers for your own nomination. It's also a fun, rewarding experience in its own right. I probably spend more time reviewing than I do writing, quite honestly.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Josh! No! Don't tell me you agree with him! I will feel compelled to go stick my head in the toilet for punishment! (humor!) I don't suppose it matters if I can quote a style guide? Should I comply and put all the thats he could ever want into the article? If you say so I will--I will weep copiously while doing it--but I will do it. Please tell me if you think I should do that or just leave it and see. Surely you know I always think I am being polite--I'm never rude knowingly or on purpose--honestly! I do actually care about that. I do have a very direct personality though. I sometimes think I'm funny and others just look at me weird. :-) I will go be part of the review Gerda asks for here--but it doesn't give me confidence in this process that it includes me! Thank you.  That helps. I will go look at Bulgaria just because you asked. I am becoming slightly more 'philosophical' about this whole thing--at least I am trying to be less emotionally invested in something I have so little control over. Your comments make me realize it will pass or it won't and then there will be another article or another attempt and there is always another day.  Maybe I could get a reviewer who hates the word 'that.'  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, you were both right--that was fun! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're following an established style guide, there shouldn't really be a problem (short of running into a British/American clash or something). Let's wait to hear what the reviewer has to say in response for now! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I admire Outriggr for class and style, see?. I am happy that 2 years later, editing resumed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (inserted here) The quotes are very cool. I like this one for you and Josh: "To keep Rodin a sculpture is an art; prevail upon the busy. We are told that if you want a task done right, you ask, abashed, the one with too much on her plate."  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the style guide trumped everything too, but when it came to the sentence that began with a number I was told Wikipedia trumps all, and Wikipedia said I was wrong. I think they misunderstood what Wikipedia actually says because no way would Wikipedia advise ignoring rules of the MLA, Ap and so on. But I just rewrote the sentence and moved the number.
 * I am looking for the CMS and the MLA rules for use of "that", but I don't really know why I am bothering since I don't think it really matters if I'm right or not. In the meantime, here's something from the BBC:  This one quotes the AP style guide:, and while this one's a blog, it's easier to follow and a little more complete:.
 * But I am cool with waiting to see what he says. I have no trouble at all believing your compliment of Outriggr--so I will have some faith. I commented at the FAC that all the comments  made improved the article. I made the changes too, except for the thing about "that".  I just don't see how I can bring myself to insert 'that' everywhere--every time I even think about it, I see my journalism instructor and my composition instructor, side-by-side, frowning down their noses at me, looking like they have eaten something that has gone off. Jeez. I'll have nightmares. That's almost as bad as dreaming about showing up to class naked. Yep, I am definitely happier just waiting. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here (and found pleasant comments wow!) and I just want to comment on the issue of "opposes". The FAC administration, as I understand it, wants people to oppose when they have substantive criticisms, rather than turning FAC into "peer review". It is not in my nature to come out with brash opposes, and in fact I have an internal dilemma about participating in FAC because of that. There are some reviewers that say "Oppose; send it back for now" and you won't probably budge them, and the coordinators possibly like this because it gives them a rationale to close down the nomination in what might be called a prudent or efficient manner. Imagine you have to oversee 30 FACs where everyone is negotiating sentence by sentence; it's not very manageable. So if I sense this desire from the "administration", and I'm feeling confident that day, I start with oppose, but I don't like doing so and inevitably retract it and wander off. I don't want to sink your nomination by opposing, and in fact that's why I've already struck it because I don't see much evidence that the writing is going to be a basis for opposing. I'll say that when the first sentence started with "multiple different", I was primed to say something about writing. :-) (The first sentence is infinitely better now.) I hope this helps. I'm not into power games. What will probably happen is that a much more strident reviewer will show up, and you'll look back to the peaceful days of debating me... Given the breadth of the article, it's almost inevitable. Good luck. (To add one thing, though: I heartily disagree that I am giving criticism contrary to professional writing re above; that academic writing avoids "that"s. I would notice it constantly in journal articles and books if writers did this; they don't!) Outriggr (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already answered at the FAC so I will only reiterate here that you have convinced me, and I apologize again if I have been difficult, (think of poor wonderful Josh putting up with me patiently all this time). :-) No debating. I only want to cooperate. I have redone everything you mentioned--(and if you could just go ahead and point out those other 5-10 sentences you mentioned??...)  And most of all, please--don't feel badly about opposing or criticizing me--I am genuinely appreciative--I want all the criticism you can dish out. I may whine--or argue a little--but in the end, I always cooperate. (I just argue a little up front so no one thinks I'm a wuss just because I always do what I'm told.) :-) I am glad to have you and am grateful for your contributions. I am also glad you think that first sentence is improved--it's probably the fourteenth time I've written it. :0 I can say that is one of several things I have already learned from this experience--if I am not completely happy with how something is coming together--no one else is going to be happy either.  Having additional eyes on really helps with that. So thank you! Please--don't wander off. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

FAC
So Outriggr tells me the fact this topic is both broad and conceptual will work against it being approved for FA. He's been really cool, and he just explained the review could take 40-80 days for something this complex. I had no idea. I thought it was the same time frame as a good article review--like a week or so--and I'm already past that. Plus, I thought I was going to have to participate, like GA, so I've been putting off other things, and it's been pretty stressful. Finding this out means there's really nothing for me to do, which also means I should just leave it be and go work on something else. So that's what I'm going to do. I just wanted to thank you again. You have been amazing. I have learned a lot from you, and I will always be grateful. Thank you for everything Josh. What will be, will be. Jenhawk777 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could definitely be a long process for a big, complex article like this. Articles can sometimes move through FAC very quickly, but that's typically when they are on a relatively straightforward topic (especially if they're what are sometimes called "cookie-cutter" articles - most articles on battleships, storms, mushrooms, etc. look basically the same) and written by FAC regulars (so they already know basically what's going to be asked and what's expected). Feel free to go and work on other things; you may find that the FAC ebbs and flows a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do Josh, and thanx again. Jenhawk777 07:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt
Thanks for offering to review this - I had not checked the backlog, and you caught me completely off guard, because I am used to the process lasting some 6 months before anyone looks at it. So it may need some work - I will see what you think. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's such an important (and difficult!) topic, I'd hate to see it languish and/or be picked up by someone who only gives it a cursory glance. I look forward to working with you on this! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, yes you are quite right. Of course there are those who love her and those who hate her. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  19:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Assert
Overspill from the FAC review page of Political animals. A friend of mine who lectures in journalism at Melbourne University won't let her students use any synonyms for "said", as every alternative has some nuance or overtone. Going a bit too far, I think, but I see her point. I'm with you on "assert", but my bête noire is "claim", which to me – though plainly not to many others – carries a strong hint that you think the bugger is lying. –  Tim riley  talk   12:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your claim and raise you "state". Count its occurrences in articles. Weep at the state of the world. --Xover (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Opine us another that jars with me. It's a word I've barely encountered outside of Wikipedia, but some articles (typically on pop culture) seem to use it half a dozen times. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On said, though, I've encountered Wikipedians who aren't keen on it as they'd rather reserve it for vocal speech. So, I'm not saying any of this (I promise my lips aren't moving...)- I'm writing it. Certainly not my view. I think there's a lot to be asserted claimed  stated  opined said for said. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well said, that man!  Tim riley  talk   14:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Media rationale
Hi there! As part of my Unlocked article FAC, a user wanted me to add that the use rationale of this sample is appropiate for the article. As you possess administrator rights, I wondered if you could fix that for me? Many thanks and best of regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an administrator to write non-free use rationales. Decent rationales should be added by the people who are uploading non-free content and/or adding it to articles. If not, they shouldn't be uploading/adding them. At the moment, that sample has copy-paste rationales, which really aren't great for music samples (in contrast to, say, an album cover on the article about that album). Template:Non-free use rationale (and perhaps Template:Non-free media data) will be useful. Focus closely on what the piece is adding to the particular articles in which it's used, preferably with close reference to the content of the article, and explaining why a sample is needed for that purpose. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:


 * Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
 * Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
 * Other contestants who qualified for the final round were 🇲🇭 Nova Crystallis, Iazyges,  SounderBruce,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack and 🇺🇸 Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to 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. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

biblical criticism
The DYK? came out yesterday and so far not a single extra view. FAC has been up over three weeks and only one vote. As you said, didn't stand much of a chance but it seemed important enough to try. Thanx for all your in put and support Josh. I hope we have a chance to meet again. I learned a lot about what to do--and what not to do--from you and this experience! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - and I'm sorry if I've not been as hands-on as I could be. Even if the FAC doesn't work out this time, it could next time. You took on a seriously difficult article for your first attempt! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No apologies Josh--you have been great. I could not have asked for a better mentor. Views have jumped a little since the first 24 hours.  Who knows? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news
 * Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
 * Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says . An example is   which is now.
 * Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured article nomination of San Junipero
Since you're familiar with the FA process and have worked on television articles in the past, I thought you might be interested in my FA nomination of "San Junipero", an episode of anthology series Black Mirror. The nomination can be found here. If you're not interested or don't have time, don't worry – I won't be offended if you ignore or delete this message. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this; this is right up my street, but I confess I'm reluctant because (somehow) I've never gotten around to watching Black Mirror, and I'm not sure I want the spoilers! This is a definite maybe, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll be honest – if you're interested in the series, I wouldn't read the article unless you can watch the episode first. No worries. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I desperately don't want to deprive you of reviewers, but @JM, you just need to watch Black Mirror (in so far, of course, as you need to watch any telly at all), it's one of the best things around. Take care all! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit of an Inside No. 9 superfan (I really need to get around to writing the articles for series 4 episodes...) so Black Mirror is definitely my kind of thing. It's a travesty I haven't watched it! We watched the first episode and I loved it, but my partner found it a bit much; I think I never got around to watching it because she didn't want to! Maybe she'd be a bit more open to it now... Josh Milburn (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of people think that of the first episode, but they aren't all that dark. You would definitely not have that problem with "San Junipero". (And I mean, I don't think you can get much darker than some Inside No. 9 episodes – "To Have and to Hold"...) Anyway, I don't want to pressure you into a review, but definitely check out the show when you can. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dinesh Wadiwel
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Political Animals and Animal Politics scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Political Animals and Animal Politics article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 17, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 17, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt
Since there has been no activity on this for some time, I need to ask if this review is still planned.

The reason I ask, is that earlier another reviewer grabbed a review straight out of the gate and then disappeared and an administrator had to cancel the review and I had to go back to the end of a long line and start the nomination all over again. In the mean time I am taking the opportunity to flesh the article out a bit more. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  16:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I must apologise for leaving you in the lurch like this. I have every intention of continuing with the review, and will aim to find time to do so soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured topics/Inside No. 9
Was stumbling through Horror articles and came across an episode from the series. Looking through the episodes, I realized some of them are not part of the topic. Have you thought of making a Supp nom for the topic to include them? GamerPro64 00:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; the reason I haven't made a supplementary nom is that by the time I'd finished working my way through series 3, series 4 was just around the corner - and I've not even started them yet! I'll hopefully find the time... Josh Milburn (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Justlettersandnumbers • L235
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Guerillero • NativeForeigner •  Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
 * There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news
 * Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
 * Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
 * The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
 * Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
 * Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Today's featured article/October 17, 2018
Hey, thanks for the edit, but the blurb text is up to 1122 characters now, way over the max limit of 1075, and we aim for 1000 when we can get it. Give it another shot? - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do; leave it with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the "2014 book about animals in political theory. According to one of the leading names in the subdiscipline, it was the first ever edited collection on the topic (at least two others have been published since), and the first book-length effort to map the shape of the field. Whether it is successful in that regard or not, it's going to retain a place in the bibliographies of scholars of "animal politics" (myself included!) for its trailblazing nature.", for this blaze! - Btw, I have a FAC open ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I'll do my best to come by the FAC, but I'm swamped with real-world work and have some other on-wiki commitments... Including reviewing an article on your namesake! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No relative, unfortunately. She deserves all the attention. Perhaps you'll have a bit of celebratory music for sesert ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts on this topic here! I've really enjoyed reading a lot of your articles over the years.

I may get a chance to ask Martha Nussbaum a question this Friday about nonhuman animals and political theory—is there anything you'd be interested in hearing her answer to? I have one in mind about the implications of "hidden" animal capabilities undeveloped in the state of nature (e.g. cross-species companionship) on questions like the predation problem, but I'd be happy to ask one for you instead if there's something you're burning to know. Or will you be at the conference yourself by any chance? FourViolas (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't be there, sadly, no. I've never met Nussbaum, but I was very excited to read that she's working on another book on animals. I wouldn't want to take your chance of asking a question; I'm sure I'll get a chance to ask my own questions in due course! Hidden capabilities sounds very interesting (I've often wondered about the capabilities of wild and domestic versions of the same species - dogs and wolves, for example - as a puzzle for any account that rests strongly on species membership... To be frank, I'm very sceptical, to put it mildly, about her reliance on Aristotle!) and the predator problem is definitely something I'd love to hear more about from her - let's hope that the new book covers it. I think it's fair to say that the one "replace the natural by the just" line in Frontiers of Justice triggered a whole literature of responses. It's also (until Alasdair Cochrane's Sentientist Politics is released in the next couple of weeks) the only book in political philosophy that I know of that heavily defends intervention in nature. (I could talk about this stuff for hours, so I'll stop there...) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How was it? I saw some photos of the event appear on my Facebook feed, so there were at least a few people I knew there! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It was great! The lecture was good, but aimed at a general audience, so it didn't go into nearly as much detail as, say, Beyond "Compassion and Humanity". She sketched the standard and a few distinctive objections to the "so-like-us" approach (Nonhuman Rights Project: it's anthropocentric, and focuses unduly on artificial performances like ASL use that have little to do with animals' true capabilities) and the utilitarian approach (it ignores unique qualities of different kinds of pleasure in scalar quantification; animals in factory farms, like women forbidden from going to college, are wronged yet might "not know what they're missing" and experience no subjective disutility). She then outlined the capabilities approach very broadly, and addressed a few problems: human problems shouldn't "come first" because inter alia wonder at the more-than-human (not her term) is an important part of our humanity, plants don't count because of the standard "deep intuition that the ability to experience and move towards an object of desire is a baseline of ethical considerability".
 * She didn't have a ready answer to my question—how can we assess which capabilities are the morally important ones, especially in the context of large-scale intervention, given that they can vary so much between conspecifics living in different situations?—but asked me to send her links to an example I found, and a term paper I wrote last semester trying to bring ethological research into the theoretical debate on the intervention question. (I'd love to hear what you think of the paper if you're interested, by the way, although I hear you're swamped with real-world work.) FourViolas (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (I do spend a half-dozen pages articulating empirical support for your idea that domestication, along with a range of less "nature-changing" interventions like captivity and predation relaxation, undermine the plausibility of the species norm for a [subjectively] good life.) FourViolas (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Really interesting to hear. I find her "wonder" stuff a bit odd, but I do see what she's getting at. It's a nice example of something that I think she puts very well but that, ultimately, doesn't seem to quite work out. I'm also pleased to hear her taking a strong stance against the flourishing plants stuff. She's less than clear on that in Frontiers (there's a passage that says something like "maybe we do owe plants something, but our hands are full enough with animals right now"), but maybe she's seen some of that "plant studies"/Michael Marder stuff and wants to distance herself from it.
 * I feel that the more you poke at Nussbaum's capabilities approach, the less it has to do with species. There has to be "prior evaluation" on the importance of capabilities, not only as to whether they are central for a being with a life of that kind (how are we supposed to know? I'm not sure what it means for capabilities to be "typical", let alone "central") but also whether they are morally desirable. So it's not too hard to argue, I think, that (e.g.) predators' hunting/killing capabilities don't need to be protected. There's a great discussion of a big cat at a zoo given a tire on a rope to attack, rather than a gazelle. (In case you're interested, I touch on all this in my contribution to Pets and People. You can see a draft version of the paper here, and I can send you a PDF if you email.)
 * And on your paper: By all means, send away! I can't promise I'll get to it immediately, but I'll try to find time to have a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:



All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
 * wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
 * wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sir Sputnik
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keilana

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
 * A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

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

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
 * The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Connie Talbot scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Connie Talbot has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 20 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/November 20, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a bore, but can I strongly advise against this? The article was promoted when standards were a little laxer, and is now (I suspect) out of date - and I really don't think that I'll have the time to give the article any attention! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a limited number of women's articles - I'd really like to run at least one this month. If it's not up to standards, I suggest a FAR... in order to remove the star. If you don't think it deserves the star... the proper thing to do would be to start the process to remove it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'll aim to find some time to look into it. Maybe it isn't as bad as I imagine. Other articles about women I wrote that may work as alternatives: Faryl Smith (another reality star) and Faryl (her first album). The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) was adapted by a woman, and a woman is the lead. I'd say that they're all much better articles. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I nominated at FAR as you suggested (Featured article review/Connie Talbot/archive1) but the nomination has not attracted any attention, and it's still listed as forthcoming on the MP. Do you have any suggestions? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for Connie Talbot, and good luck with the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt
Since there has been no activity on Hannah Arendt's GA review in a month, you will understand that I am concerned that this article may never get promoted. Its importance is reflected in its page hits, so it deserves to be taken to at least GA status at some stage. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  21:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry. My term has been far heavier than I anticipated, so my contributions to Wikipedia have basically stopped. I will invite someone else to take on the review and step back. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I rather suspected it might be that. Good luck. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  22:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Ambassis macleayi/GA1
J Milburn, it's been about eight weeks since you last posted here, and there are a couple of comments from the nominator(s?) that would seem to indicate that the issues raised have been (or have partially been) addressed. Please stop by as soon as you return; if you can't pursue the review any further, please let me know and I'll try to find a new reviewer to finish up here. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svgk Chan

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

Technical news
 * Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
 * To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
 * Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

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

Obituaries
 * (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

Sorting tables
Hello, I noticed that on articles such as Margaret Murray, you've inserted sort keys so that the table will sort titles with leading articles properly. However, you also inserted italics around the sort keys (which are not displayed), and these count in their sorting, causing the whole table to sort improperly and the items with leading articles to be sorted separately. Please avoid doing this as this causes an improper and unexpected sort order (if you are doing this intentionally, it would merit a hidden comment explaining why). You've also done this recently, so that's why I've brought it up. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jo-Anne McArthur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banos ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jo-Anne_McArthur check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jo-Anne_McArthur?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ambassis macleayi GA
Thank you Josh for taking the time to look at the Ambassis macleayi article. Your input was very helpful in informing me of what needed to be done. Much appreciated. - Nick Thorne talk 23:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. 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 make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Orangemike
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BorgQueen •  Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

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



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD:
 * G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is db-disambig; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
 * R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion).  This is db-redircom; the text is unchanged.
 * G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use db-blankdraft.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
 * Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

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

Arbitration
 * Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , ,.

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

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)