User talk:Alsee/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community portal. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

18:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

16:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Northam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ralph Northam. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

I just wanted to say thanks for trying to help me on my draft article but a couple of people have killed my motivation to actually work on it and when I asked how to make a stub article in the teahouse I was told making it a stub wasn't going to help the article at all because there is nothing that talks about it whatsoever and they didn't even answer my question. But that's beside the point I just wanted to say thanks again for trying to help me but idk what else to do on it because like that person said there is currently nothing online to help that article, so I'm essentially just going to give up on it as much as I regret it :/. Zebrazach20062 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Zebrazach20062 I had posted a bunch of sources to your usertalk, and I just copied them to the draft talk page so they don't get lost in case you leave. They might be adequate for Notability, but I'm not sure how good the gamer websites are. I posted to WT:WikiProject_Video_games#Are_these_sources_considered_adequate_for_notability asking for an opinion on them. Alsee (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
You didn't have to do that, but thank you Zebrazach20062 (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

19:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #7

16:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

22:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cannabidiol

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cannabidiol. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

16:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on
Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

The

this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Legobot (talk
) 04:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019

Welcome to a special newsletter from the Growth team! This special newsletter is not about Wikimedia Foundation Growth team projects. Instead, it is a call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019. We think that many people who receive this newsletter may have something valuable to contribute to this space at Wikimania. We haven't translated the newsletter, because Wikimania's language is English.

Please see below for the message from the organizers of the Community Growth space at Wikimania.

---

Wikimania 2019 is organized into 19 “spaces”, which are all accepting proposals for sessions. This message comes from the team organizing the Community Growth space.

Since you are interested b Growth team projects, and potentially involved in welcoming newcomers initiatives on your wiki, we would like to invite you to submit a proposal to the Community Growth space because of the actions you’ve done around newcomers on wikis. The deadline for submission is June 1. See below for Community Growth submission topics and session formats. Topics and sessions have to be in English.

In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:

  • What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
  • How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
  • How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?

Recommended topics: please see this link for the list for the list of recommended topics. If you do not plan to submit a proposal, you can also suggest additional topics here. If your topic does not fit into our space, remember that there are 18 other spaces that could welcome you sharing your knowledge and perspective.

Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. Please see this link for the list of recommended session formats.

Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one!

More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.

Please submit your proposal. The reviews will happen at the beginning of June.

If you have questions about Wikimania in general, please ask them on the Wikimania wiki.

On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team, Trizek (WMF), 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Alsee,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been

compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion
about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the

New Page Patrol talk page
.

News
  • Following a
    WP:GNG
    .
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

Just cos u're a wikipedia dinosaur: What's the best path to finding out if a user is an admin from the point of encounter- mostly signatures and edit histories? Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK 12:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool there's a deeply entrenched idea that an admin is "just another editor" when they're not acting in a formal capacity, so I think there's a general aversion to anything that would make admin-status stand out on a passing encounter. When I do want to check, the easiest method I've found is to go to their contribution history, go to the bottom of the page, and click User rights. Note: that link doesn't seem to exist on some of the foreign wikis. A possibly quicker method, which I haven't been using... would be to just try loading the page WP:Requests_for_adminship/USERNAME. I expect that would get an accurate answer in almost all cases. Alsee (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

AfD for Coach Meddy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coach Meddy is currently a red link at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 4. Do you plan to create this AfD page, or should I remove the red link from the log? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke thanx, but I think I have it all cleaned up now. Twinkle was glitching on me, perhaps because my AFD text was long. Alsee (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Weird. If I understand what happened correctly, Twinkle added an AfD tag to the article and added the deletion discussion page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coach Meddy) to the log, but didn't actually create the discussion page? Thanks for tidying up at any rate. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
cob}}? Or maybe just some random internet glitch. Shrug. Alsee (talk
) 00:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've never encountered anything like that before. Oh well, sometimes it's good to slow down and do things by hand anyway. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to eavesdrop. Let the devs know, maybe? Usedtobecool TALK 07:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Usedtobecool. Coincidentally I have lots of experience engaging the Foundation and stuff like bug reports. If any further problems turn up I'd be happy to take care of this. However at the moment it's a brief glitch, for one person, of unclear nature, and I didn't properly take note of the error messages that popped up. There's a good chance that the issue is isolated to Twinkle - an AFD nomination involves three edits and the first two edits of the process did go through correctly. It's possible Twinkle was unhappy with my abnormally-long AFD nomination or something. Any report I filed right now would be abysmally vague. Alsee (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, of course, duh :D Removing from watchlist now; no more barging in lol :) See you around! Usedtobecool TALK 16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Being a Nepali editor I even don't know how many workers and contributors are there then how can you directly tell and remove the content? this is really something fishy here and you can't remove it at your own. Owlf
20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Owlf I was just in the middle of posting on your talk page, but we can discuss it here. First, Don't template the regulars... I'm not a new user and it should be obvious that my edit was not a test edit.
Regarding your revert at Prakash Neupane, and your question: How can any international editor can tell this is self-published and how can they know how many peoples are wroking on these online newspaper?
The kathmandutribune.com/about page helpfully tells us that the entire "staff" of this "newspaper" consists of two people, plus two foreign correspondents. The byline of the cited piece is By Kathmandu Tribune, obviously indicating it was
WP:SELFPUBLISHED
by the website owner with zero editorial oversight. Furthermore each piece on the site has a handy pageview counter. Pages on the site have negligible readership, and in many cases a significant percentage of that "readership" of their articles is actually just Wikipedia editors checking up on refs that have been added pointing to those pages. I have also seen sufficient evidence (which hopefully I don't need to dig up) that the site posts paid promotional content.
As a fellow editor with the
COI
edits.
I request that you self-revert your edit that restored this source to the article. Thanks. Alsee (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RSN RfC

So first I want to say that I'm not disputing your !vote - you can come to whatever conclusion you think is appropriate and I totally respect that. I happen to think the source is RS but biased (the authors are for the most part established academics) myself, so I can certainly see how others would disagree. AFAICR I never added any content on the basis of these authors myself (though I did undo some blanket reverts by Icewhiz and FR which used this source but in those cases the issues went beyond just Chodakiewicz) My concern was mostly with regard to you "buying in" into the nonsense that Icewhiz is peddling (I'm concerned that others may as well too, precisely because they only "skim" the diffs - which don't show what he claims they show - and jump to conclusions). Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tonsillectomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tonsillectomy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #8

09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Gravedancing

I consider your comments under the vote I previously cast to be

bludgeoning, they say), not bad faith. I don't appreciate your casting aspersions. Thanks. --Anomalapropos (talk
) 06:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anomalapropos. I do not believe my edit was gravedancing. I am pretty sure that you and I have never interacted before, and I have no hostility towards you.
The outcome of Wikipedia deletion discussions and other discussions is intended, ideally, be an impartial reflection of Wikipedia policies. It is not considered unusual to note in an AFD when a
Canvassed
to the discussion, that the editor may have a conflict of interest in a subject, or when the editor has been sanctioned (usually a block). When a discussion is closed the closer will evaluate all of the rationales and information available, in the context of Wikipedia policy, and determine whether my note is relevant or whether to ignore it, when determining a formal consensus result.
I do not doubt that you were working with good intentions. I noticed that you received friendly advice from Valereee on your usertalk. I'm not sure if you are planning to join us to edit other topics or whether you would welcome more advice, but I would be happy to help explain how things work here and how to be more successful. Wikipedia is a very unusual place. When people first arrive here it can be like being dropped into a foreign country with an alien culture and unknown rules. Not everyone will fit in here - for most people "writing an encyclopedia as a fun hobby" is about as weird and incomprehensible as "jumping out of airplanes as a fun hobby". But if you do decide to join us, I promise you that the policies and norms on Wikipedia do come together in a way starts to make sense. An encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" should have fallen into worthless chaos the day the edit button appeared. But we found a way to make it work. Wikipedia has over five million articles, and those articles cover every controversial topic on the planet. Wikipedia is a collaborative project - most of our rules and expectations center on how to work with other editors. How to work with other editors even when they radically disagree. I can help explain how that works, if you plan to stay with us and you want a helpful guide.
An interesting note: It seems that an unusually high percentage of our editors are on the autistic spectrum. It's clear that for many on the spectrum, it is not a barrier to succeeding here. In fact in some ways it seems that it may even be a positive fit. Part of the way we work is to declare many of the messy "people issues" as invalid in our discussions and procedures. There are policies for how things should work, for what is or is not a valid argument, and those standards should be applied objectively regardless of how people feel about the article-subject. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and a good encyclopedia writer treats Hitler's biography the same he treats the biography of some great and heroic person. What information belongs in an neutral objective encyclopedia article? And how do we resolve disputes?
Part of making this all work is that we have a rather unique definition of "neutral". Our articles do not contain "truth". A main reason you got topic banned is because you made a very very common mistake. Basically, you were trying to argue Truth. Arguing Truth does not work here. Yes that seems bizarre to everyone at first, but it makes sense when you understand what we have to do here. On the internet, arguments about Truth are a never ending waste of time. On the internet, someone will come along and waste 42 months arguing the Truth of any side of any issue. It quickly becomes obvious that Wikipedia can't work that way. Those kinds of arguments are disruptive to our work. If a Truth-argument (or anything else) disrupts our work, it leads to topic bans or full blocks. So we can get back to work. There are other kinds of arguments that do work here. In some cases those other methods can be a powerful tool for winning disagreements on Wikipedia, but they require accepting that it's not about Truth. They require giving up any battle when those policies and methods go against your desired result. Alsee (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Anomalapropos oops, I mean to say "I noticed that you received friendly advice from Valereee on your usertalk, and your positive response. I believe it is a good sign that you may do well if you decide to continue editing." I wanted to add that back in as a new comment so it didn't get lost. Alsee (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Alsee,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at

AfC
submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please

be on the alert
for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at
NPR
.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are

SPA
and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

Toolbar with menu opened

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #9

14:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Urolagnia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Urolagnia. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria

The

this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Legobot (talk
) 04:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)