User talk:Newbiepedian/Archive 3

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Belarus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Belarus. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek royal family
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek royal family. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Columbine cup
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winter War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winter War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of the busiest airports in Europe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the busiest airports in Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Washington
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

UC Berkeley
Hello, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on why you thought the original was more accurate? The top ten rankings are graduate programs (they cite number of research publications - a measure for PhD students). Forbes and US News ranked Berkeley #20-30 for their undergrad programs. 2600:1010:B065:7BA4:C589:DCFC:9AA9:6064 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Do you have any sources for that? An existing source which that sentence cites is a US News ranking which aims to rank the universities themselves as a whole (based primarily on research metrics), rather than their teaching programmes specifically. In this ranking, UC Berkeley overall (not specifically its undergraduate nor graduate programmes) is ranked 4th, and that's what the sentence is referring to. Hope that helps.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response. I think we are misunderstanding. There is no such thing as a ranking for the university as a whole. If you read the ranking and scoring criteria for AWRU, TIMES, and US News global, a significant portion of its data is based on research publication output - which is a measure of Ph.D student success. Not undergrad! US News National and Forbes measures SAT data and undergrad admit rates.


 * I'm saying the statement "top-ten" is only for rankings for graduate data. (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology-world-university-rankings-2018; http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2017.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B065:7BA4:C589:DCFC:9AA9:6064 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that isn't accurate. Research output is not generated only (or even necessarily mainly) by graduate students, but also by faculty. The quality of research output is therefore a quality indicator for the university as a whole. There are indeed graduate rankings, but these also take into account (much like the undergraduate rankings) the perceived quality of teaching and student satisfaction, which you'll note the survey linked in the article does not (see the ranking's methodology).


 * In fact, this is why, if you care to visit the ranking and click on any of the universities, it takes you to a "global" tab on the university's ranking page: Because you're coming from the global (i.e. holistic) ranking. The other tabs, "college" for undergraduate and "graduate" for graduate rankings, relate to the other forms of rankings. So in summary, no, the linked ranking is not a graduate ranking – there are graduate rankings and they're entirely separate. It is very much an overall ranking.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marischal Square, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SNP and Evening Express ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Marischal_Square check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Marischal_Square?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) 09:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

ACREQ
We ran the trial for 6 months and it worked fine for translations to be submitted as Drafts through AFC where they are quickly accepted. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern isn't so much that people can't submit translations through AfC, it's the question of whether or not they will. Are there any numbers on the amount of translations submitted through AfC in those 6 months against the amount of translations posted in the preceding 6 months? (I'm guessing the answer is "no", but I would be delighted if there were!)--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any stats but I know I've accepted a few. 4 days/10 edits is a trivial barrier for a Good Faith editor anyway. There are always potential downsides to everything but have you looked at the graphs near the bottom of the RFC? Clear as day this is a good idea and it's running over 80% support. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence a weak oppose, not a strong oppose! I do agree that the basic idea is decent, and usually I would lean towards the adage of "don't let perfection get in the way of goodness", but as you say, there is 80% support and I seriously doubt that my weak opposition is going to tip the balance on the consensus when this RfC is closed. At the same time, perhaps it'll lead to the implementation of a Wikimedia-wide confirmation process, which I think would also be a good thing (and have possible uses beyond article creation).--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 22:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Rollback granted
Hi Newbiepedian. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ANewbiepedian enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  Malinaccier ( talk ) 02:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Zengeza High School
I removed the prod that you added to Zengeza High School. The article is supposed with a reference from a reliable source, and traditionally all verifiable secondary schools have been treated as notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they have not. WP:NSCHOOL. Will AfD.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar and for your report of the vandal. You and User:General Ization were a great help. It can be annoying to have to deal with persistent vandals who get away with their vandalism for an extended period of time, especially when the vandalism is to one's talk page. It is sometimes hard to get quick relief on Saturday nights as AIV seems to get backed up for hours at a time. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! I was patrolling the recent changes, noticed the same user talk come up again and again, and thought "Well, that can't be right." Very glad it got sorted out in a (relatively) timely fashion!--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Move of RfC
Moving an RfC mid-discussion generally should not occur. I’ve reverted you. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your violations of WP:NOTBROKEN. The thread is WP:NOTBROKEN violations by Newbiepedian. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NACD
Hi, you closed an AfD (Articles for deletion/Haroon Janjua), and it surprised me. Did you even bothered to read the arguments or just tallied the votes? Despite the large number of editors !voting to keep, I don't see a single argument which is supported by policy. Some of the references provided by User:Ma'az are not even meet the definition of WP:RS. Just look at the article, the subject received only one award which is not even notable (at least by WP standards). Anyways, I have reverted your closure for now and suppose an should admin close it. On a related note, given your AfD participation is very low, I would suggest you to don't close controversial AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At-least one topic banned User:Spasage !voted keep. & one IP just !voted keep and quoted User:Legacypac. See the User:Legacypac comment timestamped 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC). --Saqib (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as you yourself point out, it isn't about tallying votes, it's about seeing whether there is consensus. You can't call 4 editors (yourself, Winged Blades, Störm and E.M. Gregory) supporting deletion "consensus" when there are also 3 legitimate editors (Legacypac, Ma'az and Eddy) supporting retention. It was relisted twice for the very reason that consensus had not been established, and since the relisting no clearer consensus was reached. Hence why it is no consensus. A no consensus closure does not prevent it from being AfD'd again in future by a different editor on the same grounds.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just look at the arguments made by Ma'az and Eddy. Do you honestly think they're policy based argument? initially voted to keep you should also note down his comment timestamped 5:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC). I'm pinging him here to clarify his position. --Saqib (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst a NC was not way-out-of-line, there lied an equal probability that some administrator might have closed it as delete.Please avoid closing controversial AfDs and making close-calls, until and unless you garner enough experience.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric  11:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There wasn't really, as an admin had delisted it twice and neither of the delistings had resulted in any clearer consensus in favour of deletion. I would also point out that the majority of AfDs contain no arguments based on policy, because most AfDs concern themselves with notability, on which Wikipedia only has guidelines, not policy. The reason we have the AfD process instead of just admins going around deleting according to policy is so that inclusion criteria for the article can be examined on a case-by-case basis, not just to settle discrepancies in divergent readings of the guidelines.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 18:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of English monarchs
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of English monarchs. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alexander Curtis
Hello! Your submission of Alexander Curtis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news
 * The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
 * A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news
 * AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new  function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
 * When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. 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. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
 * The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries
 * (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Curtis
Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)