User talk:Puddleglum2.0/Archive 1

Welcome to Milhist!
 Hello  and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Good article nominations and reviews
Hello, Puddleglum2.0. I see that you are a new editor and have recently reviewed a Good article nomination. It is normally not encouraged for new editors to be reviewers until they gain experience on Wikipedia in general and with Good articles specifically, especially for a controversial article like Aaron Swartz. Reviews are supposed to check against the Good article criteria's specific points, but a "drive-by" review like yours is not helpful to other editors looking at whether this article is of "Good" quality.

I also see that you posted (and then retracted) a nomination of Kennewick, Washington for Good article status. I will say that the article is not up to Good article standards for a variety of reasons, mainly the lack of citations for certain paragraphs and passages; the incomplete nature of the article (missing sections on neighborhoods, parks, infrastructure, and most of the history); and the sloppy writing. A nominator should be someone who worked a great deal on the article or has permission from other major contributors.  Sounder Bruce  06:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. Thanks for your comment! Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Puddleglum2.0, and thanks for performing the good article review of the the Aaron Swartz article. Could you please provide a more detailed explanation of how the article meets the good article criteria at Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2 using one of the templates at Good article nominations/templates? You can see examples of this at Talk:Kitty O'Brien Joyner/GA1 and Talk:Mary Jackson (engineer)/GA1. —  Newslinger  talk   18:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am new to WP and not quite comfortable using templates. I just looked at the criteria and compared them to the article, and it seemed like they were in agreement. I realize that I probably should have waited until I was more familiar to WP before I reviewed articles like that. If you want, I am open to the recall of the GA status. I also didn't know about how controversial the article was. Sorry. Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Templates aren't mandatory, so you don't have to use them. Would you be interested in writing an explanation that examines each of the good article criteria on Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2? If you don't feel comfortable doing this, you can also withdraw the review. It's completely up to you. —  Newslinger  talk   19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. I feel like I should probably just withdraw the review and leave it to an experienced editor, if that's OK. Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Currently, we have too many articles in the good article nominations queue, and not enough reviewers, so you're welcome to start reviewing articles again when you feel comfortable enough to do so. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about editing. Welcome! —  Newslinger  talk   05:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

OK! Thank you so much for your time! Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome
 Hello, Puddleglum2.0, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Puddleglum2.0, good luck, and have fun. —  Newslinger  talk   18:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gesa Credit Union (October 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Liance were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gesa Credit Union and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gesa Credit Union, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gesa_Credit_Union Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liance&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Gesa_Credit_Union reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liancetalk/contribs 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Is/was
Hi there, re: this, please note that per the last paragraph of WP:TVLEAD, shows, even if canceled, are assumed to exist in one form or another, so in that first sentence, "Pillai Nila is a 2012-2014 Tamil language soap opera" would be correct. Your other correction of is to was ("The show was produced by") is correct, because the show is no longer being produced. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi ! Thank you for letting me know. I'm not a big TV person, so I didn't know that, but I will remember that in the future. Thanks again! Puddleglum2.0👌 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And thank you for being receptive to the note! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Puddleglum2.0👌 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg MSGJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ivanvector
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
 * The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
 * A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle warnings
Hi! I see you already have Twinkle installed, so you might like to also use Twinkle for warning vandals. You just click on "TW" in the upper right corner > "Warn", and then select an appropriate warning level / type. It also automatically signs your warnings, which is helpful in order to know when they were last warned and who warned them. See you around :) – Thjarkur (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks, I wasn't quite sure how to use it. Thank you for bringing that up! Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 22:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

re message
As new user here, I have no idea what to click on to respond to your message. Re message: I guess one should make small alterations in bits, since the explanation box is not really large enough to hold detailed explanations. Does that figure?

ChrisWhittington (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for reaching out to me! The reason I reverted your edit is because it seemed like you deleted a whole ton of information in the article. If you can give me a good reason why you did that, I would be happy to revert my revert and restore your edits, but I didn't really understand your edit and it didn't seem helpful. Again, feel free to talk to me about it and I can answer your questions! Yours - Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for that, I am still struggling of course with all the Wiki ways and means and etiquettes, so thank you! In general, on that Rybka article, what we see is the sort-of patchy result of a (the) major argument and unpleasantness in the little field of computer chess. I guess I did indeed take too strong a delete brush to the Strelka and Ippolit sections without adequate explanation. Other than a passing reference, it's dubious either section belongs there at all. First the Strelka section( and NB this is a Rybka wiki page). Strelka chess engine was alleged to be a copy of Rybka. The evidence that it is a copy is patchy, unsourced and dubious. It's a maybe, maybe not. The author of Strelka is alleged to be some Uri Osipov, who may or may not actually exist, allegedly. So far, so gossipy.The Fruit chess engine author, stated that he thinks Strelka derives from his engine. So, we have sourced evidence that various people have made various allegation back in 2011 or so, but these have never been backed up with anything that can be sourced, and basically this makes, in my opinion(!) the Strelka section to be gossip that doesn't actually tell readers anything about Rybka, and no reason to connect it to the Rybka page. By all means leave it in the Strelka page. Or, an alternative edit, I'll suggest after Ippolit Section:

For the Ippolit section: Again, this is quite gossipy as it stands. Ippolit was/is a chess engine produced by (supposedly) a group of politically inspired Russian hackers. Maybe, maybe not. It's origins remain mysterious. Rybka author has written than he thinks Ippolit is a reverse engineered Rybka, although he may have backtracked on that, since the reference has been deleted from his own forum site. The remaining comments in the paragraph are gossip.

So, I guess a possible edit, would be to merge those two sections into one, giving sourceable facts, insofar as those facts connect somehow to the Rybka wiki page. So what do we have? 1. Rybka author has claimed that two chess engines, Strelka and Ippolit, were the result of decompilation of his chess engine, Rybka. No evidence has been provided by the Rybka author and one of the accusations has since been deleted from his web forum. 2. Fruit author has claimed Strelka chess engine is a copy of his chess engine, Fruit. No evidence has been provided for this claim.

I think that would be a factual history of sourced, Rybka relevent material.

Anyway, thanks again for your commenting. It is quite daunting as a newbie here knowing how it all works! It says I should sign with four tylda characters. And I'm not sure if this is how to 'reply', I looked around for a reply button, but to no avail. Is editing the page how one is supposed to do it?

ChrisWhittington (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the long reply! Yes, I'm beginning to see your take on Rybka... I now actually think that it is maybe good to delete it, but it would be even better to source it and reword it so that it is true. either way, I guess that's fine. I will restore your edit. Yrs, you do just edit the page to reply to your messages. Generally you want to ping the person you are responding to; that gives them a notification that you responded. You can read the link to find out how. ALso, it will only work if you sign your post, so keep that in mind to. Again, thanks for the reply! Yours - Puddleglum2.0 \   /Have a talk?  15:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discus the rule on whether to include the victims names
Dear Puddleglum2.0,

I hereby invite you to discuss a possible new rule on whether or not the name of victims should be included on various articles (i.e. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting.

The discussion can be found here: Village_pump_(idea_lab)

TheHoax (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into it. Puddleglum2.0  Have a talk?  18:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Puddleglum2.0. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have&#32;temporarily [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3APuddleglum2.0 enabled] rollback on your account&#32;until. 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! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2019 (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.
 * Hi Puddleglum - now you have rollback, you have access to Huggle and Stiki. Using them is not part of the course, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about them. My advice is to try Stiki first, before moving onto Huggle - they are similar in some ways, but Stiki lets you take your time whereas Huggle puts a certain amount of pressure on you to make quick decisions, which isn't ideal while you're still getting used to things. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

and what is the expiry? If just says after the temporarily enabled bit. Thanks- Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  15:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, strange. It's indefinite, unless misused. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK thank you. Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  15:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Football
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Football 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 SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Football
The article Football you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Football for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Archives
Hi, I've converted your archives to the form "/Archive 1" rather than "/Archives/November/2019" since I was unable to figure out how to fix ClueBot's indexing. I think this should work automatically now. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  16:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Good articles
Hi - since I'm a nosey sort of person, I followed the links above to the Football GA nom. It's great that you want to get involved in article improvement - if you don't mind a bit of unsolicited advice, if I were you I'd start out with some smaller articles. Football is such a big subject (and article), getting it to GA status would be a pretty big task. I've written a few GAs, but they're all about fairly constrained topics - historic buildings, mostly. If I were you, I'd start out small - GAs don't have to have hundreds of refs, they just need to have enough to give good encyclopedic coverage, so a subject which is notable but hasn't been written about too extensively is easier to knock into shape than a subject like football that has had entire forests worth of books and magazines written about it. If football is your thing, perhaps a particular club or player would be an easier place to get started? Anyway, congrats again on the CVUA course, and happy editing. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for your advice. I didn't realize that you had to contribute significantly to the article, but now that I know that, I hope to get a GA done sometime. Football isn't really my thing, it was just an article I saw while rving vandalism, and I thought it was really good and well sourced. Thank you.  Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  20:00, 20 November 2019 (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: Mz7 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2019 (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.


 * Thank you. Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  19:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Stand
Hello. I noticed that you reverted my edits for "vandalism," but none of them were vandalistic in any way imaginable. If anything, you're edit was incredibly disruptive and done with a false rationale. NEVER do that again. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:CCBF:2938:CDE7:4680 (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Sorry, I don't think your edits were vandalism persay, but they were not constructive. The article was better before you edited it, I am sorry to say. Would you like me to give you some links that will take you to editing guidelines and editing help so you can learn how to edit constructively? Thank you,  Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  04:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is unnacebtable behavior to remove warnings from your talk page. If I see your side of the issue and agree with you, I will strike those warnings, but it is not cool to delete them yourself. Regards, Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  04:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still adding material from the Cinefantastique issue, so I'm not finished yet. Also, they were constructive edits. Can you please wait until I've added all the material from the magazine feature? Also, you ARE allowed to remove warnings from the talk page. Only if it's a block notice and you're still blocked can you not remove the message. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:CCBF:2938:CDE7:4680 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please tell me when you are done editing that article; I will check it and see if the edits are constructive. Thank you, Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  04:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. There's a LOT to add from the magazine, so please be patient. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:CCBF:2938:CDE7:4680 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry I have to put that warning on your talk; I will strike it if I see your edits are Good Faith. Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  04:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I need to go do real life stuff now so I will review your edits tomorrow. Please put a link to the article you edited here when you are done. Thank you. Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  04:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's give it a try
Puddleglum:

Let's see what you can do. You might want to start off with some copyediting experience first - it will give you some insight on how folks will copyedit your copy, so make that a bit easier to take. You should also go thru the archives (look for how often WP:Video games has already been done) If it's already been done twice, you should start with a different topic. In the archives you can also check what seems to work in an article and what doesn't. I'd tend to start out with more facts than others have (if I remember them correctly). For your own use you might find a list of the currently viable WikiProjects. Many were started, but few survive. Your job is not to promote the WikiProject, but to let readers know about it if they run into somebody from the project, or even to know if they want to join. Neither is it your job to criticize the project or bring up all the old mistakes they've made, but you should try to ask the questions that you think our readers might ask. So if there were a WikiProject Beauty Pageants, you'd have to ask yourself if you'd want to ask whether the pageants fit into the modern view of women or just objectify women. Off the top of my head I'd guess that the participants would love to answer that question if you put it politely, so probably yes on this one. In general I'd say this isn't the type of column where you'd want to ask the obnoxious question about the elephant in the room, but you should ask a couple of tough questions in a polite way. More later. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me try. I decided not to write about WikiProject VG, as it has been written about numerous times before. I was going to write about it because they are on the verge of meeting their biggest goal, but I'm retrospect I will not. I will find a namd WikiProject and write about it. Thank you also for the advice, Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  02:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, you might want to try WikiProject Tree of Life . They seem to be active and have some sorts of projects going on. That's about all I know, but it's something different!  For your first column, please try to get the copy in by the 19th or 20th so we can avoid the holiday rush and correct any mistakes in plenty of time.  Please put it in the Newsroom under "other columns(?)" and then move it up with the regular columns.  (I'll probably be out of town this month!) Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan . Thank you, Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  06:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beeblebrox
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
 * Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits
Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations such as names of organizations or products need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. '' Also, I'm no expert on this but I can't imagine your signature meets WP:SIGAPP as it is barely legible on the page, at least to me. The pink is so light that on a white screen there is not enough contrast to make it out. '' Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC),


 * Oh man, I'm sorry. I was up editing too late and wasn't paying enough attention. I'm sorry for wasting your time, it won't happen again. BTW, about the signature, that's weird, no else I've interacted with told me anything. I'll just go ahead and change it anyway. Thank you for telling me all this though! Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  05:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're hardly the only one, a lot of folks don't realize this aspect of the username policy. It's kind of my one-man crusade to try and make more people aware of it. The sig thing, maybe it's worse because I'm getting older and also using an iPad with a small screen, but it just looks like a pink squiggle to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks a lot for notifying me, I appreciate that. I am working on changing my signature, I'll be done soon. Thank you! Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  06:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. A good way to verify whether colored text is visible to the great majority of people is checking the contrast over at WebAIM's Contrast Checker. AddWitty  NameHere  16:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you much! Puddleglum  2.0   17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Your new signature is much easier to read. :) AddWitty  NameHere  20:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy editing feedback
Since you are new to the GOCE (welcome!), I took a look at your copy edits on Krzysztof Niemczyk. Overall, the article was greatly improved. I made a few more edits to tag unsourced information and do a bit more cleanup. Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, welcome, and your enthusiasm is greatly appreciated. I hope that you will continue to contribute to the Guild of Copy Editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the message! Puddleglum  2.0   15:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Planet Rock
Hey Puddleglum. Thanks for starting your copy-edit of "Planet Rock". As for the lead of the article, unless some new rules have come in that I'm unfamiliar with, per MOS:CITELEAD, "the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." I don't believe I have anything in the lead of "Planet Rock"'s article that is not in the prose. Ditto for the infobox. Also, I've archived my talk page, it was something long over-due! Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)d


 * OK, I should have looked more closely before I said that. :) I've been really busy the last couple days, but I should be able to finish the copyedit soon. Thanks, Puddleglum <sup style="font-family:impact;color:silver;"> 2.0   23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries! Makes it easy on both of us. Thanks again for taking time to check out the article. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Puddleglum <sup style="font-family:impact;color:silver;"> 2.0   23:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Shropshire
Hi, about my edit to Shropshire. As of yesterday, Virgin Trains is no longer in operation and has been replaced by Avanti West Coast. Therefore, all articles that say Virgin Trains need updating to say Avanti West Coast. Otherwise the information is out of date. Thank you for understanding. 82.0.161.78 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * (For the record) Responded to on talk page: issue resolved. Puddleglum <sup style="font-family:impact;color:silver;"> 2.0   00:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)