User talk:Xinbenlv/Archive 2

WikiLoop
If you could put me on the whitelist for direct revert that would be cool. Seems like a good tool, only thing I've noticed is that it opens another tab to revert the changes. Would be more fluid if it reverted it automatically.  CatcherStorm    talk   00:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please subst your wikiloop invitations
Hi there! I see that you are inviting people to participate in a project. When you add the invitations to someone's talk page, please do it like this:

That will put the actual code of the template on the page, and add your signature. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your support on the outbreak discussion! Hoping we can find some consensus on a short-term fix that makes everyone a little happy and reduces the volume of RMs in this topic and all of the branched topics. Not sure if it's possible but certainly worth a shot.

- Wikmoz (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * haha like-wise xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - February 2020


Read the full newsletter here

Article of the Month

The Coinage Act of 1873 or Mint Act of 1873, 17 Stat. 424, was a general revision of the laws relating to the Mint of the United States. In abolishing the right of holders of silver bullion to have their metal struck into fully legal tender dollar coins, it ended bimetallism in the United States, placing the nation firmly on the gold standard. Because of this, the act became contentious in later years, and was denounced by some as the "Crime of '73".

By 1869, the Mint Act of 1837 was deemed outdated, and Treasury Secretary George Boutwell had Deputy Comptroller of the Currency John Jay Knox undertake a draft of a revised law, which was introduced into Congress by Ohio Senator John Sherman. Due to the high price of silver, little of that metal was presented at the Mint, but Knox and others foresaw that development of the Comstock Lode and other rich silver-mining areas would lower the price, causing large quantities of silver dollars to be struck and the gold standard to be endangered. During the almost three years the bill was pending before Congress, it was rarely mentioned that it would end bimetallism, though this was not concealed. Congressmen instead debated other provisions. The legislation, in addition to ending the production of the silver dollar, abolished three low-denomination coins. The bill became the Act of February 12, 1873, with the signature of President Ulysses S. Grant.

When silver prices dropped in 1876, producers sought to have their bullion struck at the Mint, only to learn that this was no longer possible. The matter became a major political controversy that lasted the remainder of the century, pitting those who valued the deflationary gold standard against those who believed free coinage of silver to be necessary for economic prosperity. Accusations were made that the passage of the act had been secured through corruption, though there is little evidence of this. The gold standard was explicitly enacted into law in 1900, and was completely abandoned by the U.S. in 1971.

On the Main Page Today's Featured Article January 11

The Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar is a fifty-cent piece struck by the United States Bureau of the Mint in 1925 as a commemorative coin in honor of the 150th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. It was designed by Chester Beach. Members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation introduced legislation in 1924 to authorize a commemorative half dollar for the anniversary. The bill passed both houses of Congress and was signed by President Calvin Coolidge. Beach had to satisfy committees from both Lexington and Concord, and the Commission of Fine Arts passed the design only reluctantly, feeling he had been given poor materials to work with. The coins were sold for $1, and were vended at the anniversary celebrations in Lexington and in Concord; they were sold at banks across New England. Although just over half of the authorized mintage of 300,000 was struck, almost all the coins that were minted were sold. Depending on condition, they are catalogued in the hundreds of dollars.

Picture of the Day January 13



(see more)

-

The WikiProject Numismatics newsletter is a monthly newsletter published by WikiProject Numismatics &bull; If you have any questions about the project or numismatics in general, feel free to ask here &bull; Discuss this newsletter here &bull; View previous issues here New members are automatically added to the subscriber list &bull; If you are not a member and would like to receive this newsletter, or are a member but would not like to receive future issues, you may subscribe/unsubscribe here Delivered by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 17:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield Champion Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar, It's a great honor Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you!, I am starting to create Barnstar and other award messages for WikiLoop Battlefield, and the current idea is to have weekly/monthly/yearly champion. Hope people like it. Your feedback is welcomed! xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chhattisgarh Youth Congress
Hello, Xinbenlv. I noticed your odd "Shadow Closer" note at this AfD. WP:NAC says: For practical purposes, non-administrators should not take formal action in discussions whose outcome would require the use of administrator tools. Deleting an article certainly does require admin tools so non-admins such as you & I should not attempt to close those discussions for "delete". There is no mechanism for or position of "intern for closing discussion" due to this fact. If you want to contribute to AfD discussions, please do so. It would be advisable, in fact, for you to simply contribute !votes to the discussions there. I notice you've contributed to 119 AfD discussions but you seem to have only expressed a preference in those discussions 9 times. That is a slim basis for making closing decisions on AfD discussions. You really should have a much larger base of experience before you attempt evaluating the consensus of the !voters. I don't think what you're doing is damaging, per se, but it isn't especially helpful at this time, either. If you want to be able to close Afd's freely, then you should work towards becoming an admin because "Shadow Closer" simply doesn't exist as a position. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thank you for education, yes, this is the first time I am trying to help closing AfD, and what I was doing is trying to go to all the old discussions, as it was my first time, I err on the cautious side and only try to closed when 1. it was non-delete. (For delete i only attempt to interpret, but not actually take action), 2. Dominant keep or seems no consensus after multiple times of relists. For the rest I relist for longer time. Thank you for AFGed me. And i appreciate all education you could give. Feel free to revert any closure or relist you think i did it wrong. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 13:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I AGF because I think I can see what you were trying to do: reduce a backlog. I think that is an admirable goal and I work on a few of those myself. I am still concerned, however, about the outcome of that attempt. Most of what you say above is reassuring but when you invite reversion of your closure it suggests you haven't read all the policies that apply completely.  Non-administrators closing discussions says: Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator...; or by consensus at deletion review.  This is why  below has made their requests here.  I don't want to discourage you but jumping into an area that tends to attract strong opinions like AfD without testing the waters first is seldom a good experience for anyone. I would like to suggest that you stop making NAC's at AfD for the time being.  Spend time instead familiarizing yourself with the reasons and etiquette for deletion discussions and with the arguments to avoid.  Then start watching and reading discussions as they progress.  When you feel you have a handle on the standards in AfD discussions, both the formal written standards and the informal unwritten ones, then start contributing !votes.  Work your way up to closing AfD's, in other words.  It will probably be a better experience for you and for others, as well. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, let me try to revert myself! xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , actually, before I proceed to revert individual revisions, is there a way to massive revert/rollback a timerange / revision range conducted by me as suggested by  xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware there is no tool available to non-administrators that will revert edits made by a user (including yourself) across multiple pages. You will need to go to each individual AfD to revert, I'm afraid. I could be wrong, though, so you may want to ask about it at the Help Desk. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, I think at this point I will first revert all the 4 BADNACs you mentioned, for the rest majority are relisting, would it be OK to leave them there for now? If any keep or merge or no consensus are incorrect, I will revert accordingly again xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Chhattisgarh Youth Congress is handled by admin, which is a Delete, which means my interpretation of consensus for that particular discussion is correct? xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I never intended for you to read the above as a request to revert on Chhattisgarh Youth Congress. Your comment there had no practical effect (which was my point) and therefore a revert wasn't really necessary. I don't want to speak for but either treating your comment as a "Delete" !vote or ignoring it would likely lead to the same outcome. I personally don't treat any admin close of any AfD as an endorsement or indictment of my !votes and I wouldn't suggest that to anyone. As to the leaving the relists not mentioned below alone, I think that's fine for now.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Close of Articles for deletion/Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Hi, please reverse the close of this AfD. It was a WP:BADNAC and should have been relisted, because at that moment it was at the very least a No Consensus, but more likely a Merge outcome. If the close is not reversed, I will most likely go to WP:DRV.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ✅ xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, please reverse the close of Articles for deletion/WildStar (Image Comics) too. It was also a WP:BADNAC, in my opinion. The two deletes had valid rationale, the three keeps did not. At the very least it should have been relisted an additional, second time or decided by an actual admin with experience.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ✅ xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (3rd nomination) was also improperly closed and should have been a "merge to Magic in Harry Potter" per the predominant consensus. At this point I think you should just reverse any recent closes you made entirely and let others handle it, as there is clearly a lack of understanding of how AfD works.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ✅ xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I am new to conducting closures, please help me revert them, if you think my interpretation of consensus is incorrect. Thank you for the education. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 13:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As explained above, I am not allowed to revert them - the closer must be the one to do it per Wikipedia policy. In any case, I think Eggishorn explained the situation well. If a discussion has even the slightest hint of controversy or debate, a non-admin should not be the one to close it. NACs are reserved for totally uncontroversial discussions where keeping it around would be pointless.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for explanation! xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Learn to interpret
and thank you for your kindly reaching out to me and correct me for BADNAC. I want say that here what I am doing is practicing to interpret the consensus. I have been involved in AfD debate and presented my reasoning before. And I felt that debating AfD is a different skill from learning to interpret the consensus of a AfD and hence that's what I am practicing. I understand that for various reason that I shall not close delete consensus and shall be super careful to close any AfD that has a slight feeling of controversy. For those, I will express my interpretation and I will make it even more obvious that by no means my practice of interpretation shall be considered a recommendation or influencing the actual closer. e.g. Special:Diff/947348810. Does this time my comment look better? Again, thank you for being super kind to educate me. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Xinbenlv, you are right about contributing to AfD's and closing them being different skills. That said, closing any discussion is not merely a matter of counting noses. You need to know what arguments are irrelevant or illegitimate and you need to know how much to weight different positions expressed by the contributors.  The rules on these factors are not (and could never be) hard-and-fast rubrics. They require interpretation informed by experience.  You need to start off, therefore, by being a contributor to AfD discussions and learn through experience what arguments work and what doesn't. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NAC and WP:RELISTBIAS
Can you please explain this relist? Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * for this one, delete seems to be consensus but some argument arises of recreating the list, unsure if that would be rejected or lead to a redirect xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also having looked at the last several comments on your talk page from others, I'd strongly suggest yo8u stop dabbling in administrative areas of WP:AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to come out and say it - based on the FBS relist and the very large number of concerns expressed in the last week or so, stop closing discussions. And yes, this includes relisting. You say you want to get more experience at AfD, but you should do so by commenting, NOT administrating. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you help me take a look at my explanation of relist? xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay in replying, I didn't see the ping until just now. Quite simply, there were reasons that the information in the pages might be recreated and/or put into a new format (listing, WikiProject subpages, etc) but there was not a single person who advocated keeping those lists as they were in the article space. Redirects can be created without having the original article there. The very strong consensus was to delete those articles. Relisting on the somewhat-off-chance that someone might want to turn the page into a redirect or otherwise recategorize the data is giving preference to a very small minority and ignores the majority. While I understand your interest in wanting to make sure "all" of the voices get heard, an AfD (or any consensus-building discussion) will have people who are not happy with the outcome; you can't please everyone, and making sure the consensus is a 100% everyone-is-happy outcome is just not possible. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And same for this relist. Please explain. Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

：: I left in the relist comment that

Discussion began with argument for "valid encyclopedic topic", and the counter-argument started to evolve. I believe this discussion is in the middle of forming consensus, and needs more time, hence the relist.

is this the explanation you are looking for, or do you want more explanation in any particular aspect? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In either of the cases I've pointed out, your relist was not detailed as per accepted reasons to relist. And in the last one it's pretty damn clear what consensus is. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you refer to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Traditional_fishing_tackle_of_Central_India i respectively disagree and genuinely believe at the time of my relisting, a consensus has not converged. I may be new to NAC and agree with many of your kind advices of improving my skill on interpreting judgment starting with commenting rather than closing, but I respectively stand with my judgement for this one. It's ok that you disagree with me and I look forward to be convinced and educted, but merely saying it's damn clear, didn't help explaining why you believe it is a clear consensus or if i have a relistbias. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not new to admin because you are not an administrator. Please stop relisting and NACing AFDs per mine and Primefac's request. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I could do that - stop closing, as per you and Primefac's request. I am genuinely here to contribute to Wikipedia not damaging it so I still want to learn why you believe there is a already a clear consensus at the time of my relisting? xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , adding a few other participants of the original discussion. Would you help educate me why it was a clear consensus at the time of my relisting as per   xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will repeat what I said above: it's clear you want to be helpful but you don't have the experience to be doing what you are doing. It is useless to ask for education if you're not going to accept that advice. The only way to gain the education you seek is, as I said before, through experience discussing AfD nominations. Not in closing them (and yes, relisting is part of closing).   The fact that an actual administrator  ( above)) directly told you to stop closing or relisting and your response is to ask for help on how to close or relist is very worrying. If you continue to close or relist, you will certainly be blocked or banned and that would not help anyone. There are a million and one things you could be doing instead that would be helpful. This is not one of them.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on this relist as well, since I'm here. While consensus-building discussions are never a straight head count, overturning (or even relisting over) a 5:1:1 discussion keep:draftify:delete argument would meant that the "keep" votes had to be almost non-existent (e.g. only a keep and a signature) or completely refuted by those deleting. However, this is not the case here, as even the deleted !vote says "it could be a notable topic" and essentially advocates for blowing it up and starting over.
 * As above, I understand the need to take everyone's input into consideration, but if a relist basically needs to pull a 180 to reverse what looks like the "obvious" consensus (i.e. the headcount of 5-1-1), then it shouldn't be relisted; in other words, a relist would have required at least three new people to advocate for deletion before it even got close to a "no consensus"; the only times I've seen that happen is when the last !vote before relisting was invalidating a significant portion of the given sources (which didn't happen here). As above, it's not necessarily that you made a terrible relist, but it was pointless because it the outcome is more-or-less guaranteed regardless of the relisting. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a clear explanation.
 * First off. I like to ensure everyone that I am going to take your advice and plea to impose a self-sanction to stay away from NAC for 60 days or any longer time you would otherwise advise. In the meanwhile, I will continue to join the discussion of AfDs and make myself a bit useful and more experience in the area.
 * I like to highlight that while I have been conducting a good amount of delete, move and other reviews and debate, I have learned a lot from actually conducting NACs and understanding what it means to be an obvious consensus and what is not yet, and the concept of "relist", which I would have never learned by merely participating the discussions/debates themself. I am going to say it's an important way to learn by actually doing it.
 * In retrospect I felt what I did wrong primarily is probably doing to a bit too fast and too many at this point. Here is what I could have done better:


 * begin with enough participation of debate, such as 100 times (or a suggested number).
 * make sure do NACs only in an appropriate frequency, like at most 3 - 5 times a week, allow experienced editors to discover them, while giving them enough time to help steer the course or alert you if anything goes wrong.
 * proactively ask for advice or supervision, and
 * whenever an advice are given, take actions like revert quickly
 * I believe this would make it safe and still a helpful experience.
 * I also like to thank everyone else for giving me advice on this. Again I assure you I am going to cease performing NACs and conduct a few more comments before coming back to keep on learning closing. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to relist when everyone or most everyone agrees on what to do. Also I thought only administrators could relist things.   D r e a m Focus  18:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admins can do pretty much everything except close as delete, though it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to unilaterally overturn a NAC if they have a reasonable justification. It is strongly discouraged for NACs to take any action on "contentious" or "close" discussions, though in practice this is rarely the case. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Sorry. But thanks for the ping. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No quorum
Hi, when relisting at AfD, instead of relisting discussions with little participation and no one opposing deletion, please let a closing administrator treat the nomination as an expired PROD for deletion. I.e., lack of participation does not necessarily warrant relisting. (not watching, please )  czar  15:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - April 2020


Read the full newsletter here

Stub Article of the Month

The Big Maple Leaf (BML) is a set of six $1 million (CAD) gold coins each weighing 100 kg (3,215 troy ounces). They were produced by the Royal Canadian Mint (RCM) in 2007, at their Ottawa facility where the first BML produced remains in storage. , the market value of a single Big Maple Leaf had reached approximately $4 million (USD). On 27 March 2017, one of the coins was stolen from a Berlin museum.

On the Main Page Today's Featured Article February 2

The San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge half dollar is a fifty-cent piece struck by the United States Bureau of the Mint in 1936 as a commemorative coin. One of many commemoratives issued that year, it was designed by Jacques Schnier and honors the opening of the Bay Bridge that November. One side of the coin depicts a grizzly bear, a symbol of California, and the other shows the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, with the Ferry Building. Congress passed authorizing legislation for the coin in 1936. Schnier's models were approved and the coins were struck at the San Francisco Mint. Just over 70,000 coins were sold, by mail, in person, and from booths at the Bay Bridge's approaches, making it the first commemorative coin to be sold on a drive-in basis. The coins were taken off sale in February 1937, with the unsold remainder returned to the Mint for redemption and melting. The Bay Bridge half dollar catalogs in the low hundreds of dollars, depending on condition.

Picture of the Day March 20



(see more)

-

The WikiProject Numismatics newsletter is a monthly newsletter published by WikiProject Numismatics &bull; If you have any questions about the project or numismatics in general, feel free to ask here &bull; Discuss this newsletter here &bull; View previous issues here New members are automatically added to the subscriber list &bull; If you are not a member and would like to receive this newsletter, or are a member but would not like to receive future issues, you may subscribe/unsubscribe here Delivered by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisting
Regarding your relist at WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Basketball, WP:RELIST suggests that debates should not be relisted more than twice. However, that was its third. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, T.T. I self-crossed out the relist per your comment. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , more generally I think non-administrator third relists (as found at Articles for deletion/Democratic Initiative (Italy) should probably be avoided at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Barnstars
Listen, I'm sure it was well intended but spamming users repeatedly with ten barnstars (and with egregious spelling errors) is disruptive. Perhaps read through WP:HERE and find something to do that actually helps the project instead of playing the game. Praxidicae (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for kindly bring up this concern. So far the feedback on these barnstars has been very positive, but I can understand where your concern comes from. And I did see the grammar error because of the updated default parameters I used. Thank you.

Here are actions I will take per your advice:


 * 1. Fix the grammar
 * 2. Temporarily pause awarding weekly barnstars.
 * 3. Collect more feedback from the awardee. If any awardee have reached out to you or bring this up anywhere, please kindly let me know.
 * 4. Add feature to allow opt-out barnstars

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 07:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you re-read the suggestion I posted as well as that of others? Focus on improving the project rather than engaging in unhelpful behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!
As someone who has just recently become active on WP after being very inactive for a while, I was thrilled to receive this week's barnstar for Battlefield. Thank you, and thanks for building the tool! I love it. Looking forward to continuing to use it. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to be of further service. Cheers! Paradox society 07:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words! WikiLoop Battlefield is a young product, we welcome all kinds of help, including:
 * Updating the Wiki page of WP:WLBF
 * Design and beautify the barnstars
 * We need a new name and new logo, join the name discussion WP:WLBF
 * and besides everything, keep patrolling the incoming revisions
 * xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Incidents involving impersonating Law Enforcement has been nominated for deletion
Category:Incidents involving impersonating Law Enforcement has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BIPS article deletion discussion
Hi Xinbenlv. I see you are a member of the cryptocurrency wikiproject, so maybe it'd interest you to weigh in at Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposal? --187.178.163.96 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin XT
Hi Xinbenlv, I was wondering whether you also felt like commenting on Articles for deletion/Bitcoin XT. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Xinbenlv, thank you for your interest and contribution to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is in m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Xinbenlv, thank you for your interest and contribution to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is in m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Xinbenlv, thank you for your interest and contribution to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is in m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Xinbenlv,

thank you for your interest and contribution to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is in m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Xinbenlv,

Thank you for your interest and contribution to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is in m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Xinbenlv,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Xinbenlv,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Xinbenlv,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiloop Application Error (!)
"Application error An error occurred in the application and your page could not be served. If you are the application owner, check your logs for details. You can do this from the Heroku CLI with the command" CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks,for letting me know

Let me check 73.222.245.192 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems working on my side, do you still have the issue? xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 13:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin Classic
Hi, would you like to also comment on Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Classic? --Ysangkok (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Hi Xinbenlv! What a splendid day! I hope you're well. If you like, you can leave a comment at Articles for deletion/Base58. Cheers!

Ysangkok (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - July 2020


Read the full newsletter here

Article of the Month

Operation Bernhard was an exercise by Nazi Germany to forge British bank notes. The initial plan was to drop the notes over Britain to bring about a collapse of the British economy during the Second World War. The first phase was run from early 1940 by the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) under the title Unternehmen Andreas (Operation Andreas, Operation Andrew). The unit successfully duplicated the rag paper used by the British, produced near-identical engraving blocks and deduced the algorithm used to create the alpha-numeric serial code on each note. The unit closed in early 1942 after its head, Alfred Naujocks, fell out of favour with his superior officer, Reinhard Heydrich.

The operation was revived later in the year; the aim was changed to forging money to finance German intelligence operations. Instead of a specialist unit within the SD, prisoners from Nazi concentration camps were selected and sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp to work under SS Major Bernhard Krüger. The unit produced British notes until mid-1945; estimates vary of the number and value of notes printed, from £132.6 million up to £300 million. By the time the unit ceased production, they had perfected the artwork for US dollars, although the paper and serial numbers were still being analysed. The counterfeit money was laundered in exchange for money and other assets. Counterfeit notes from the operation were used to pay the Turkish agent Elyesa Bazna—code named Cicero—for his work in obtaining British secrets from the British ambassador in Ankara, and £100,000 from Operation Bernhard was used to obtain information that helped to free the Italian leader Benito Mussolini in the Gran Sasso raid in September 1943.

In early 1945 the unit was moved to Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp in Austria, then to the Redl-Zipf series of tunnels and finally to Ebensee concentration camp. Because of an overly precise interpretation of a German order, the prisoners were not executed on their arrival; they were liberated shortly afterwards by the American Army. Much of the output of the unit was dumped into the Toplitz and Grundlsee lakes at the end of the war, but enough went into general circulation that the Bank of England stopped releasing new notes and issued a new design after the war. The operation has been dramatised in a comedy-drama miniseries Private Schulz by the BBC and in a 2007 film, The Counterfeiters (Die Fälscher).

On the Main Page Today's Featured Article April 29

The Hudson Sesquicentennial half dollar is a fifty-cent piece struck by the United States Bureau of the Mint in 1935 as a commemorative coin. The coin was designed by Chester Beach. Its obverse depicts the Half Moon, flagship of Henry Hudson, after whom the city of Hudson is named. In addition to showing the ship, the coin displays a version of the Hudson city seal, with Neptune riding a whale, a design that has drawn commentary. Although the city of Hudson was a relatively small municipality, legislation to issue a coin in honor of its 150th anniversary went through Congress without opposition and was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, becoming the Act of May 2, 1935. Most of the coins were likely bought by coin dealers, leaving few for collectors, with the result that prices spiked from the $1 cost at the time of issue. This caused collector anger, but did not lower the coin's value, which has continued to increase in the 80-plus years since it was struck.

Picture of the Day April 13



(see more)

-

The WikiProject Numismatics newsletter is a monthly newsletter published by WikiProject Numismatics &bull; If you have any questions about the project or numismatics in general, feel free to ask here &bull; Discuss this newsletter here &bull; View previous issues here New members are automatically added to the subscriber list &bull; If you are not a member and would like to receive this newsletter, or are a member but would not like to receive future issues, you may subscribe/unsubscribe here Delivered by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Two more Bitcoin articles nominated for deletion

 * Articles for deletion/Coins.ph
 * Articles for deletion/Amir Taaki (2nd nomination)

I thank you in advance for your input!

--Ysangkok (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

HFCS
On my talk page, you said: ''I understand that you disagree with some of existing content on High-fructose_corn_syrup. And I assume that you are trying to help not damaging it. Please note the revision you are trying to revert ''is this one Special:Diff/966243722 which is NOT the revision that is adding the source that you think is unreliable. The revisions adding those you disagree with are these revisions by If you believe the source is unreliable (which I actually lean to agree with you), start an other edit of your own, I believe you will have to address your disagreements with other editors e.g.  on the article. that's the right way to do it.'' ''
 * Really can't see what your driving to change here. The Myers article is a lab study of mice, and is not encyclopedic to include. Read through WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS to see why. Same message to . Zefr (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

we don't leave messages at redirects!
Do not attempt to leave messages at redirects like User talk:OxonAlex. You have done so twice and have been reverted both times. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop
Please stop leaving tons of automated messages, you are flooding recent changes and watchlists and there is no reason to send a message to everyone who has ever commented on an RFC. Things like this require use of mass messaging. Doing this without such rights is basically operating an unapproved bot and can result in a block, not to mention pissing off every Wikipedian trying to look at RC or their watchlist. Praxidicae (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for running unapproved bot scripts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. OK stopped now, didn't know that. Apologize and thank you. Alternatively will apply for mass messaging.
 * I'm not sure you understand the full scope of the problem and I would strongly oppose you being granted MMS since this isn't really even a good use of it. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, as a person who have just received the message, I'd say that it's pretty useful to know. The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 18:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great but that's not the purpose of MMS. Not to mention someone who so irresponsibly ran an unapproved automated script so carelessly cannot be trusted with MMS. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks like cause for a WP:CIR block to me. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)