User talk:Richwales/Archives/2015-10

BLP violation
Would you be able to explain why that edit is a BLP violation, as I was reporting about a controversy (the DHS editor) instead of the "affair" itself. Considering that I in no way implied that there was an affair going on and only stated that the editor was the one writing such, it seems unfair to oversight an edit when the rest of the oversights on that page were legitimate BLP violations and were linked back to sources that were questionable (and should thus have been rightly oversighted). I can see why being overly cautious would work in this situation, but a few editors went in and edited McCarthy's page, and ended up finding a way to fit it in (namely moving it down the page and re-writing my awkward prose), instead of removing it altogether. I'm just a bit thrown since this is the first edit I can remember that was legitimately oversighted, as I am also well-aware of the BLP policy and tried to write it such that it would not get oversighted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussion is happening. I'll get back to you later today.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, and thanks for getting back to me on that so soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The consensus of the experts was that your edit didn't need to be hidden — because the allegation in question has been so widely reported — so I removed the suppression (oversighting). Someone else has subsequently added material similar to yours, so I didn't reinstate your edit as the latest version.  If you feel the most recent version of the article is incomplete and should be expanded or rewritten in some way, by all means go ahead and edit it as you see fit; however, anything said about the allegation needs to be extremely well sourced, it must be made clear that the allegation is at present unproven, and any denials by the accused parties must be reported (again, with citations to high-quality sources).  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, as I just was curious to see what would happen. I do agree that I should have sourced that more, and I ended up writing a more convoluted version in the end, instead of something simpler. Thanks for letting me know how that went as well, as I really appreciate the work that you and the other oversighters and administrators are putting into this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Your GA nomination of Kawakita v. United States
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kawakita v. United States 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 Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kawakita v. United States
The article Kawakita v. United States 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:Kawakita v. United States for things which need to be addressed. — Maile (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kawakita v. United States
The article Kawakita v. United States you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kawakita v. United States for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

request
Noting the SPI which showed that Pizzole did indeed sock - might you now examine "recent edits" by  including what might be improper AfD nominations and PRODs sans notifying anyone else involved, and his comments thereon? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There aren't improper AfD nomination. Articles are poorly sourced and with very little text. Nothing notable until consensus. (Pizzole (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC))

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Kawakita v. United States at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Problem fixed. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)