User talk:The Wordsmith

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

JDiala AE
Hi there! I wanted to ask what you think of giving me an additional few hundred words on my AE statement. Given the large number of allegations made, including new allegations introduced by BilledMammal which I disagree with, I do not think I can manage with the 500 word limit. JDiala (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, after some thought, I will voluntarily withdraw this request. I don't expect the additional words to make a decisive difference, and I think the way the 500-limit is set up is very logical to avoid excessive verbosity by all parties. Thank you for your feedback on the AE. JDiala (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. Please note for the future, word extensions should be requested on the AE thread itself. That keeps everything together in one place and improves transparency. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

AE Diffs
Thank you for contributing to the AE. Would you mind telling me which are malformed for you? Mobile diffs can be a bit difficult, I’m happy to try and fix them. FortunateSons (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Diffs 2 and 7 seem to link to threads that were deleted or archived, rather than the archived discussion or the actual diff. The mobile site and Minerva skin can be really finicky for editing, especially for getting diffs. I'm usually on desktop, but for those times when I'm using a phone or tablet for editing I override the mobile skin from my Preferences. Monobook is actually good and readable even on a cell phone. Not as good as it is on desktop, but still surprising for a skin that's older than smartphones. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDiala#Zionist_narrative doesn’t seem to work, no matter how much I try; could it have something to do with the fact that the title is surrounded by ""?
 * 7.:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive362 now links to the right place for me, so I’ll replace that if it does for you as well.
 * Monobook is a good recommendation, I’ll look into it, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quotes need to be part of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDiala#%22Zionist_narrative%22 is what I got from grabbing the link on the desktop version, that seems to get me to the right place. Another reason that it's often easier to grab the specific diffs, with the added benefit of being a permanent link that won't change when the original thread gets archived. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will include them!
 * That’s a good idea for next time; however, this editor does not archive their talk page afaik, so the harm is limited here, right? FortunateSons (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but he could always set one up later as his talkpage grows. I wouldn't call it "harm", I just try to get in the habit of sticking to best practices. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s true, I’ll try to do that in the future, thanks. FortunateSons (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Graham Beards
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana · Mets501 · Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana · Warofdreams



Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news
 * The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
 * The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous
 * WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace citation needed tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Seconded! Chetsford (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1230037497
Hey! and I were in the process of working on a close of part 2, but it seems like you've overwritten our tag here. If you'd like, you're welcome to join us and we can all close both parts 2 and 3 within a day or two. Let me know, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think that was an edit conflict because I started reading and marking it as Closing then got distracted. Sure, I'm happy to work on a joint close with the both of you. The Wordsmith Talk to me 06:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hi, I've posted an ANI discussion about the closure of parts two and three of  The Anti-Defamation League at Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents. I am an unpaid consultant to the ADL and was only made aware of these discussions last night. Best, Ed BC1278 (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note regarding ADL RSN discussion
Just as an FYI: This comment by an ADL rep. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Noted, thank you! The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Thanks for your close! VR (Please ping on reply) 18:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A TARDIS for you

 * Thank you for the kind words, I'm just glad the discussion is finished and we can move on (at least until the next challenge). I'm sure co-closers and  feel the same way. If you've got any recommendations for something more fun to read than that RFC (admittedly not a high bar) I could use a palate cleanser. Otherwise I think I'll pick up The Hobbit again. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The Hobbit sounds like a great palate cleanser! I was reading his Sea-Bell the other day and learning about the neat words Tolkien coined or resurrected in that and other writings (which might interest you, as a wordsmith, if you don't know them already), like ruel-bone and wikt:eucatastrophe. :o &#45;sche (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, the Wordsmith.... Project Hail Mary.  starship .paint  (RUN) 01:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just bought it for my Kindle. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You don’t get to define us
Jews should get to define antisemitism — not racist narcissists who are offended that the vast majority of Jews in the world say that antizionism is almost always antisemitism.

And to do it at a time when antisemitism has enflamed by antisemitism is a real dirtbag move.

May you reap the hate you've sown. Quickrunfast (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

- seems like the only hate is from your message. Besides, at least one of the three final closers is Jewish.  starship .paint  (RUN) 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"advocacy group"
I have a question for you regarding the ADL RfC close. I think that's a good close and I'm not challenging it by any means, but merely trying to further my understanding of policy. (As you can see my !vote aligns with your closure).

I understand your initial close except the part about why the fact that ADL is an advocacy group is relevant, and how do we define "advocacy" in contrast to "bias" and "conflict of interest"? Advocacy groups are absolutely biased, but that doesn't make a source unreliable. Is it that being an advocacy group creates a type of conflict of interest? Or is there another reason why being an advocacy group is a detriment to one's reliability? VR (Please ping on reply) 18:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Being an advocacy group isn't necessarily disqualifying (since they also publish research and factual claims), but it is something that should be considered when citing statements of fact as opposed to WP:RSOPINION. In this case, consensus was that the pro-Israel advocacy led to the ADL redefining pro-Palestinian demonstrations as antisemitism, making their statistics on antisemitic incidents in the context of Israel/Palestine not just biased but misleading or false. In other words, it isn't necessarily the bias but the inaccurate statements caused by that bias. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

False claim
You've just protected an article, reverting my edit to it and claiming that there is a consensus to include an attempt at a joke in the article. No such consensus exists. If you believe that somewhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines there is a consensus that a joke relating to the title of a page is valid encyclopaedic content, do point it out to me.

Additionally, I see that you spammed my talk page with a warning template, but did not do the same to the person who was reverting my edit. Why? 151.71.237.22 (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You were engaged in an edit war and reverted the same content three times in a very short period. reverted twice, to restore the stable version of the article content which has been discussed multiple times on the talkpage. If you believe the content should be changed, the right way is to follow WP:BRD and discuss it on the talkpage rather than repeatedly reverting. The Wordsmith Talk to me 06:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted twice; once last night, once this morning. EEng reverted twice last night. Even if your alternative history were true, it would not explained why you spammed me alone with warnings. And you did not identify any part of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that supports the idea of user jokes as valid encyclopaedic content. 151.71.237.22 (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have a strong feeling that this might be WP:LTA/BKFIP. — AP 499D25  (talk)  08:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it looked a lot like block evasion, but I wasn't sure enough and didn't have a master to tie it to. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Listen, TW, could we have three years of semiprotection at Self-ref humor? This has gone on for a decade.
 * Ok, how about one year. Six months? E<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I did see that and I considered a longer semi. I only shortened it because I was surprised to see the page had never been protected before, so jumping straight to 6+ months might be overkill for a first protection. If I see more IP disruption or block evasion when it expires, I'd be fine with going long term. Or if you catch it before me, you can always post here to let me know and I'll have enough evidence to justify a long or indefinite protection. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick Qᵘᵉᵘᵉ
It's very much immaterial in any case, but was there a procedural reason why the protection level on Boxer Rebellion was increased? Admittedly, there's a pang of shame that it was partially my fault—twasn't my best day at the office. Cheers! Remsense 诉  20:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It wasn't anything to do with you–I was working on Sockpuppet investigations/Milktaco and that was one of the articles heavily edited by a suspected sock. I couldn't prove it was sockpuppetry, but looking over the recent edit history I saw tons of confirmed sockpuppetry, vandalism and otherwise disruptive edits from IPs and new accounts along with very little productive editing from IPs. Semiprotection should hopefully tamp down on that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, pssst—the Pirate Party DYK topicon on this page is missing its ). Remsense  诉  21:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks! <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Things to do info
Hi,

You said to post on your talk page for info. I'm open to any suggestions or guidance you might provide. The time which I can spend doing stuff on Wikipedia isn't very large and I've been doing most of my reading (and some replying) from my phone. When I'm at my PC, I also just use my phone for internet. While it's reliable the speed isn't great and I do not have a lot of data so I do have those limitations.

Cheers. Chrhns (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure no problem, sorry I was away for a holiday so I'm just getting back to Wikipedia now. WP:TASKS has a pretty solid overview of the routine things that need to be done. Given the limitations you mentioned, Categorization might be a good one to dive into. It's important but doesn't require much bandwidth/data or time commitment. Answering edit requests is another good one, or fact checking depending on where your interests lie. WP:XFD could be another place to get involved since you're already familiar with our content guidelines, and they need more participants desperately. Community portal/Open tasks is also a good place to go if you have a few minutes and want to tackle something quickly. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thnak you for your assistance! Chrhns (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to update you that I actually ended up taking something of an interest in editing articles, nothing dramatic or contentious (far better for me to steer clear of those issues, I reckon), but just making little improvements here and there in the way of finding citations and trying to improve the quality of a couple of articles about some author-historians. Chrhns (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Elli · HouseBlaster · Pickersgill-Cunliffe
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Brianga · De728631 · Georgewilliamherbert · Hyacinth (deceased) · ProveIt · The Night Watch

Technical news
 * Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Revision deletion
Hi! I noticed you revision-deleted the edit summary you made on this edit; I understand you accidentally named the wrong editor in the summary, but I don't think this is an appropriate use for revision deletion. The "RevDel corrections" bit of RD6 is intended for fixing prior mistakes *in revision deletion itself*, not just hiding ordinary editing mistakes. If you don't mind, could you revert the revdel? I can also do it for you, if you prefer that. Thanks in advance! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I ordinarily wouldn't have just for naming the wrong editor, but since it was actually enacting a sanction my understanding was that declaring that the wrong editor was sanctioned was bad enough to warrant RevDel. I'll admit I generally don't use RD6 (not sure if I ever have, actually) so if it's an incorrect revdel I don't mind reverting. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The text of [WP:RD6|RD6]] is: including correction of clear and obvious unintended mistakes in previous redactions, changes to redaction based upon communal discussion and clear consensus, adding information to the delete logs, and converting traditional selective deleted edits to RevisionDelete. (The action must not be likely to be contentious or controversial; consult if needed); everything is in the context of fixing other redactions, not just ordinary editing mistakes. I don't think accidentally naming the wrong editor in an edit summary is that big a deal, sanctions or not; the right way to fix it is what you did already, which is to say normal reversion of your edit and re-doing it with the correct name, so that there's a permalink available to an edit with the correct username. After that, revdel isn't necessary, I think. Anyway, thank you for reverting! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I had looked at the Non-contentious housekeeping part as analogous to the housekeeping part of WP:G6 for pages unambiguously created in error. And I probably overestimated the potential harm to the mistaken editor out of an abundance of caution. Regardless, thanks for clarifying RD6 and I'll keep it in mind for the future. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Question
Hey, I have a special interest in improving articles with the 'written with advertisement like language' tag, or similar tags, especially corporate articles written in business talk instead of encyclopedic language. Do you know how I can find a list of such articles, or if there is a wikiproject focused on that?  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 23:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, there isn't a WikiProject dedicated to that specifically, but Category:Articles with a promotional tone sounds like what you're looking for. There's 22,000 articles in the category so you shouldn't have a lack of things to do. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maybe I'll make a wikiproject eventually ;)  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there is WikiProject Cleanup that might be of interest though it doesn't focus specifically on promotional articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea, and Clovermoss is right about that category. Fixing promotional articles is a great way to dive in and make a difference. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)