User talk:Kusma/Archive 38

A Voyage Round the World
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article A Voyage Round the World has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FA if you decide to move forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much @Twofingered Typist! I do have a question that I should have asked in my request: Are you happy with my use of Georg/Reinhold/Forster? I find it difficult to just call them all "Forster", but first name only could also be considered problematic. You didn't flag this up much, so do you think it is about ok? Thanks for the ALTs, that was somewhere on my todo list. I have just undone one of your phrasing edits, as it was in a direct quote that we probably shouldn't improve :) Thanks again, —Kusma (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't see how this naming problem can be avoided. This way avoids confusion. It passed the GA this way so it should be okay for FA. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jake Wartenberg
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Emperor • Viridian Bovary
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
 * A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
 * A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
 * A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news
 * The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hermann Boeschenstein
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hermann Boeschenstein you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PinkElixir -- PinkElixir (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Inter language links
Hello. I'm curious as to why you recently changed the formatting on a inter language link from :de:example to ill|example? When I read about the policy it stated either one is fine. Is there something I'm missing? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally, I believe that displaying red links to show where Wikipedia is incomplete is a good thing. An additional problem with direct crosswiki links is that people who write a missing article often don't notice that its foreign version is being linked to (one problem here is that crosswiki links look almost like local links), and so we keep having a crosswiki link even if we have a local article. ill fixes all these problems at once. I'd be surprised if we have a policy about that; it sounds like something that should be a guideline at most (and it also sounds like that guideline is wrong). —Kusma (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Does either one influence a GA rating? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, from my recent GA experience both as a reviewer and as author of reviewed GAs, no. There's nothing in WP:GA? and the linked parts of the MOS that would tell you how to format links to other languages. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Of course I and many other people would suggest to use ill because it is better, but it is not a requirement). —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Help Required for Re-Editing & Publishing my First Article Page with Name Dasha Deckwerth
Greetings Kusma, Hope you are doing well.

I am trying to Publish my First Article Page in my Wiki Account, today Morning I Published an Article with name Dasha Deckwerth with Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dasha_Deckwerth#Dasha_Deckwerth. but a few Minutes ago I got a Notification of Declining of the Article/Page & after that the same Page was Deleted by the Editors, after which I am not able to Edit the Page/Article. My First Article is about my own Biography, like my Professional Experience, Achievements etc. But No Problem, I'll Create another Page but need some help for the Acceptance of the Article Page. Is there any Requirement for the Article Page to Follow the Rules Set by Wikipedia? As I got the Rejection Reason saying the Article is like a CV. Kindly guide me a little bit so that I can Create & Publish my Articles there on Wikipedia Platform.

Thanks

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddeckwerth (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you read all the helpful links that others posted at User talk:Ddeckwerth? Please do not write about yourself. Autobiographies are so strongly discouraged as to be almost prohibited. Unless there are multiple reliable sources reporting about your achievements, no article about you will be accepted. See Help:Your first article for information about writing articles here and ask if you need further information. If you are only here to write about yourself, I won't be able to help you. —Kusma (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hermann Boeschenstein
The article Hermann Boeschenstein you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hermann Boeschenstein for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PinkElixir -- PinkElixir (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for the barnstar, happy to help! I still have to double check some of these translations... —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-however many weeks ago
Apologies on taking so long to reply, life has been a bit hectic. I had a nice laugh though when I saw my original message managed to get archived in the intervening time. Anyway, it's too bad, it looks like there aren't many cheap used copies of A Voyage Round the World available – the shipping to Canada really jacks the price up on affordable editions. Anyway, I guess I'll make do with the Wiki page for the moment! When you decide to put it up as an FAC, let me know and I'll provide a review. Cheers.  Tkbrett  (✉) 14:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Tkbrett, funny that you mention this: Featured article candidates/A Voyage Round the World/archive1 is going pretty smoothly so far :) —Kusma (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's great! I'll do my best to get a review in Monday.  Tkbrett  (✉) 23:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the FA! And my apologies on being so slow... I was around a quarter of the way through reviewing it when I got called in to work and struggled to find time to get through the rest. Point is, I clearly owe you big-time after promising and not delivering! Do you have any plans to get anything else up at FAC anytime soon?  Tkbrett  (✉) 11:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Plans? Lots! (I'd love to write more about 18th century explorers and the corresponding books). Soon? No. Too busy at work. And you don't owe me anything, but I will remember your offer when I find myself in need of a review. Talk to you soon! —Kusma (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Characteres generum plantarum
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 16
Do you have some time to look at my current FAC, above? I'm under pressure to get some reviews from the coordinators. Link is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Wehwalt, I can't quite foresee how busy I'll be in real life tomorrow, but I'll try to get to it if I can. —Kusma (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Werner Teske
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Werner Teske you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding User:Carwrecker1
Hi,

I noticed that you deleted the user page for Carwrecker1. I believe it's a sock of another blocked account, Carswreckersau, created 3 minutes apart. Please do the needful. Thanks!



MT TrainTalk 10:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, blocking slipped my mind, done now. Another admin got the other one. Thank you for reporting! —Kusma (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Werner Teske
The article Werner Teske you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Werner Teske for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Triple Crown


Congratulations! Well earned, and worth the wait. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  13:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you @Vami IV! One of these days I hope to work with you on some German castle, but I've been too busy recently. For example Schloss Wörlitz (one of the few examples of Palladian architecture in Germany) looks like a reasonable sized project, but I haven't even started looking for sources. —Kusma (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratlations to the grown, and good plans for the Schloss! Yesterday, I couldn't decide which DYK to show on my talk, a woman in red or a green park so took both. I had enough of a break now in the situation regarding LouisAlain which leaves me plain unhappy. Should we continue my talk, or here, or do I really have to return to the thread of which I believe Wikipedia would have been better without it? My first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. No doubt about LouisAlain having used terrible insults, but I doubt he would have done it in a kinder discussion, and I doubt that you (as an offended one) should have performed a block (Iridescent just lectured me about: let someone else do it), and I doubt that a block for personal attacks should be indef. The "lying" could just be misunderstanding a question, no? As for articles, I have seen troublesome articles on Wikipedia, promotional autobiographies, other contentious content, while the translations by LouisAlain are typically about historic bios and institutions, backed up by a valid article in a different Wikipedia: I see no imminent danger even if they are not perfect. In 2019, we had a list of articles with problems monitored, same in 2020, - this year we did it case by case. We could return to a monitoring system if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried to start a "ways forward" subthread at WP:AN just after blocking, but it has not worked (instead turned into a discussion of pre-block and civility issues). By all means go and turn it into something constructive if you can. The "monitoring" you mention could be an option if there are five or six people as dedicated as you are who will take responsibility for everything (if LouisAlain does not take any responsibility for his edits). —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I didn't see it because I avoided the AN. It hurt me too much to come near it. Certainly not today, because today is the last day for two three DYK nominations. I prefer content work to noticeboards anytime. WP:Great Dismal Swamp. I think I made some suggestions in the course of the discussion, which were ignored. - Would you have time to comment in the Laurent Ferlet deletion discussion, perhaps? I am dedicated to rescuing content. Even a stub translation can be useful, opening the door - via the "Other languages" feature - to information in those other languages. My pov. I don't see a lack of responsibility in such a case. I even encouraged it, today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the three is nominated. Working on the second which I found like this. What do you think, responsibility-wise? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That one is also nominated, and I dropped the plans for the third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * New day: where you told me to put constructive suggestions was closed. I'll check Max Creutz now, and you tell me the difference in sourcing and translation quality of that one and Questenberg, which was already approved for DYK. I believe we have to think again about our approach to machine translation. Deepl is often better than I am, - why should we dismiss that wholesale? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are great lessons here about how humans are still better than machines and how mechanical machine translation is harmful: The sentence about the mobile Vorbildersammlung is terribly written in the original German, and turning that into one sentence of English can't possibly work, so the machine translation was even more incomprehensible than the original. A human should have just refused to translate it. You also had to re-translate a "both" as "sisters" because "both were active as authors" is ambiguous, unlike the original where Autorinnen is clear. In the Questenberg translation, many of the side remarks and subclauses of the original German are omitted or rewritten, making the text much more readable. I'm not a fan of contributors placing refimprove tags on their own articles and would prefer un-seen sources to be clearly marked, but I don't think there is a consensus to do that yet (some discussion is at the AN, in the parts that have not been taken over by the rehashing of old feuds). —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Deepl is perfect, just that Deepl information will often be better than no information. Both original articles have few inline citations, - that's customary in German. Afaik, inline citations are demanded in English for "contentious information about BLP". Articles without inline citations are not perfect, but better than no articles, imho. - I posted on AN, before I saw this reply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I'm rude when I don't reply once more on AN. We know what you said, but in the closed discussion it was pointed out that it's not quite as clear as it sounds. I have to think of others now: sad sad sad sad, the death of two precious colleagues was reported, one yesterday, one today, and two articles are nominated in the Recent deaths section, and one needs care right now while the world looks. Excuse me please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is better to get back to content work. —Kusma (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In Freundschaft GA for GA. TFA by SlimVirgin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * more content, only I'm afraid that we'll miss that kind of topics. Of the Recent deaths, one is one the Main page, the other one waiting, and two more composers to deal with. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)



Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mkdw

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Galobtter

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
 * Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news
 * DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under.

Arbitration
 * A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
 * Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
 * The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous
 * Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
 * The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Templates For Discussion - AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates
A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Your recent block over translation with
I was too late to see the AN thread, but the quibble over what constituted a lie misses an important point—if, in a Wikipedia notice board, it takes a legal expert skilled in witness examination to phrase a question in the perfect way then the spirit here is dead. Good block of LouisAlain. Someone had to do it, nothing else was possible without a cooling off period. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Your recent block over translate, but verify
I was too late to see the AN thread, but the quibble over what constituted a lie misses an important point—if, in a Wikipedia notice board, it takes a legal expert skilled in witness examination to phrase a question in the perfect way then the spirit here is dead. Good block of LouisAlain. Someone had to do it, nothing else was possible without a cooling off period. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Challenger disaster GA review
Just want to thank you for reviewing Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. It was a pleasure working with you getting this article to Good Article status. While I enjoy getting feedback from the familiar faces at WP:SPACEFLIGHT, it's great to get a fresh perspective from an editor I have not previously worked with. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, I enjoyed this as well! I'm glad to see you didn't think I was too demanding (it did turn out to be quite a long review after all). Good luck with getting to FA status, where I expect some questions might be asked whether your removals are bad for comprehensiveness (especially with regards to reactions by media/general public/popular culture), but I think they were generally an improvement, and you're not too far from the sweet spot there. I'd also suggest to get an expert to read it through before you go for FAC. Happy editing, —Kusma (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Irving (surgeon)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Irving (surgeon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Werner Teske
The article Werner Teske you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Werner Teske for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

GDR ambassadors to the U.S.
Hey, Kusma, thanks for sending me the German Wikipedia pages of the three GDR ambassadors to the U.S. I've already created the list of ambassadors page, but the German pages don't have a lot of sources. I'm going to be checking what can I find with a simple search soon. But if you have something, you can send it to me on my talk page. And if you haven't noticed the relations article has been created. Thanks for your help. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @WikiCleanerMan: the links I gave you last time are decent sources for the most basic facts, but a bit hard to understand if you don't read German (lots of abbreviations that Google translate gets wrong or doesn't translate at all). It looks like you found quite a bit of sources for the relations article (I was pleasantly surprised: most foo-bar relations articles I have seen were just boring statistics). This book also looks useful. I'll let you know if I come across anything good. —Kusma (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a bit of a foreign relations junkie. I have only two more U.S. relations-related articles to finish, West Germany and South Vietnam. The others I've created are on my user page if you're interested in seeing what I've created. A simple search is all it takes to find sources. I've added some on the GDR ambassadors to the U.S. page which I found immediately. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's October corner
Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the DYK for GA Werner Teske, featured also on WikiProject Germany/DYK 2021. I'll have In Freundschaft in the next set, GA mostly by Jerome Kohl, - let's live it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, friendship (and a teddy bear with a bassoon!) is certainly better than the dark tone of my current DYKs (Leipzig Prison is coming up soon). —Kusma (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Today: more memories in friendship, with the teddy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Irving (surgeon)
The article Charles Irving (surgeon) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Charles Irving (surgeon) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Irving (surgeon)
The article Charles Irving (surgeon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Irving (surgeon) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Osthofen concentration camp
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Osthofen concentration camp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Osthofen concentration camp
The article Osthofen concentration camp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Osthofen concentration camp for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Osthofen concentration camp
The article Osthofen concentration camp you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Osthofen concentration camp for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

crosswiki abuse
Please block Special:Contributions/93.183.169.165 WikiBayer (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Someone else got it. WP:AIV usually works for this type of requests. Thank you for reporting! —Kusma (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Werner Teske
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Max Wallraf
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Leipzig Prison
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)