User talk:DMacks/Archive 60

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello there DMacks! I wanted to ask you about the possibility of enabling pending changes review on a draft article, Draft: Deji Olatunji. So, while I have been one of the biggest voices of establishing notability and getting an article onto mainspace, I do recognize that without more reliably sourced details being added it won’t pass due to intense scrutiny placed on the subject from its past history on Wikipedia. A few days ago, an anonymous IP resubmitted it and you declined it. I was not aware of the submission and decline until today; if I had known it was submitted I would have withdrawn it before it was declined. That leaves me to ask, as a pending changes reviewer on Wikipedia, is it possible for pending changes review to be extended onto this draft article? That way, it won’t have the restrictions semi-protection poses of potential article expansion by IP editors, but if an IP tries to vandalize or submit again before it’s ready, the pending changes could be declined before it wastes the community’s time. Is this feasible for a draft article? Thank you in advance for discussing this with me. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

PC1 wouldn't prevent edits or 'submit draft' from being made. For example, just because the submit isn't visible to the general public, as far as I know it would still be in the heap and wouldn't prevent anyone else from saying "oh, an IP has submitted a draft, AFC is working" and accepting the PC1 edit (would require that a reviewer actually know this article's situation in order to decline the edit). Do you think this article has a chance and that there are good-faith editors active on it currently? DMacks (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sahaib: who has done some substantive work on it a while ago... DMacks (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it has a chance. A lot of potential has been shown in the current revision, but I do understand the Wikipedia administrative community wants to see quite some more before it goes onto mainspace. While I haven’t been the most active due to school, I have kept my eyes peeled for reliable sources discussing Deji and notable current events involving him. Although there is potential, work does stall sometimes likely due to hurdles to overcome and real life business among involved good-faith editors, though I have noticed a trend that decent work occurs periodically and seems to be spaced out. Although this has been deemed not to be ready, it certainly looks much better than the submission rejected in January. Pinging to this discussion @PantheonRadiance: Any thoughts you’d like to share here? DrewieStewie (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Dang... I really should've followed the draft more closely. I took some time off from it to see if I could find more sources, among other real life obligations. But yeah, this is still a tricky situation. It's like a weird dichotomy I can't define well, but I both agree and disagree with both sides of the argument.

On one hand, I'm grateful for the good-faith editors working to prove his notability, but it baffles me that some editors still can't help but put unreliable sources that undermine it (and I personally disagree with some of the edits/omissions). On the other, it's disheartening to see other editors still dismiss his notability despite the presence of solid sourcing merely due to its troublesome history. While I understand this, I surmise that they likely would've agreed he passes GNG - even only slightly - if such history never happened in the first place. I still think he's notable, but both sides need to make a compromise and communicate better. On that note DMacks, since you're an admin, is it possible for you to recreate the draft's talk page so editors can closely discuss the article feasibly? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of unsalting the draft talk page. That would seem like a productive venue to discuss improvement of the draft and related considerations. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! I created it, so you should be able to edit it. DMacks (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll probably put a further draft comment on the draft article itself clarifying the status quo as well. For now though, I’m glad a centralized place to discuss this has been established so that related discussions don’t have to be unnecessarily spread out across several notice boards, user talk pages, etc. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Good plan in both respects. That article-topic isn't one I know much about, but feel free to let me know if you need more admin help with it. DMacks (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at this revert. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is sad this report did not received any response at ANI. The IP is tampering cast with fake names, it was provided with evidence. IP stayed idle while the report was live. But right after it was archived, the IP returned with a personal attack in edit summary. No action for deliberately damaging articles? Really demotivating and disheartening.--2409:4073:19E:E262:153D:84FD:F1F8:4300 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm responding to your message about the Brainspotting page and my edits lacking a neutral view and my thoughts on why I removed the concept of Brainspotting being a pseudoscience. In my opinion, the word pseudoscience ("fake science") is oppressive and instead topics such as Brainspotting should be considered being viewed at being in a juncture where the slow pace of science, where more research or scientific tools to continue research, have not been developed yet. The word pseudoscience also discounts wisdom traditions for which there is no way or means for science to study it yet, but does not mean that these traditions do not have value. Pseudoscience is not the same as the slow pace of science, and commentary such as this also doesn't feel neutral. I find this to be a heavily colonized and Western lens and am inviting awareness around this, as it can be equally dangerous to discount traditions and modalities that can be helpful to humankind. Pseudoscience also does not feel like a neutral tone. Brainspotting as an organization is raising funds for research and this takes time. EMDR was also considered pseudoscience, as well as attachment theory when it first came out- now they are considered gold standards in therapy. I wanted to share with you a recent article about Brainspotting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10037741/. as well as this news article in the Psychotherapy Networker: https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/article/turning-the-spotlight-on-brainspotting/ . Would it be possible for me to work with several researchers to help adapt this article, having it be neutral but also updating the content so it is not listed as fringe, pseudoscience, or with the theme that the article was portraying (that this is not efficacious therapy because the only evidence is anecdotal? That may be true right now as far as Western scientific studies go, however, several prominent psychotherapy researchers and neuroscientists have studied Brainspotting and developed the heavy neuroscience understanding behind what is happening. Let me know.

This is also a message from someone in our organization in regards to one of the articles discussing Brainspotting as a pseudoscience.

Debate is foundational to scientific progress. The recent Medical Hypotheses article by McKay & Coreil (2024) has prompted debate by cautioning against pseudoscience yet selectively omitting supporting evidence for the example they cite, Brainspotting – a novel derivative of EMDR.

The article lacks scholarship with statements not supported by references or unsubstantiated sweeping statements. Only the most glaring weaknesses in their argument will be addressed here. Firstly, Brainspotting arose from a clinical observation while delivering EMDR. There is solid empirical support for EMDR, and it appears in clinical practice guidelines for PTSD around the world, yet there is no mention of this in the article. The second weakness is a misunderstanding about the treatment. McKay & Coreil state that the treatment requires that a therapist detect a lag in another individual’s eye movement and that the detection of a change in saccadic eye movement is implausible. This is an incomplete understanding of the approach. In our ongoing study, participants, not the therapist, identify the point in the visual field where they detect an increase in the physical sensations linked to a traumatic memory. McKay & Coreil are critical of earlier Brainspotting hypothesis papers and highlight conceptual challenges. These criticisms are welcome (and the intention of a journal entitled Medical Hypotheses) and must be addressed with an updated hypothesis that integrates developments in trauma research.

The authors omitted case reports, a case series1 and a clinical trial2. In doing so they missed the opportunity to see the incremental progress of the Western scientific method at work. Brainspotting certainly lacks a solid randomized clinical trial. This is not for lack of effort but is due to limited funding opportunities for psychological treatment research. In closing, by omitting the available evidence for Brainspotting, McKay & Coreil became an impetus for those studying this approach to better articulate and refine ideas and to become wary of how some are promoting Brainspotting – to the detriment of its credibility. For this we are thankful.

Lastly, I wanted to update the edits I made about the count of how many have been trained in the modality. It is 30,000 according to recent stats from Brainspotting Trainings LLC, as of 2023. This was also erased when the article was reversed.

Thanks for your consideration.

In the spirit of discourse and learning from one another,

Sacredspiral

Sacredspiral (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This all sounds like a set of comments to post on the aricle's talk-page. One part is a factual change of number, which would need to be supported by a specific citation. The rest is quite a different type of change and does not seem supported by

WP:COI disclosures. DMacks (talk

) 02:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi DMacks! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:The Herald! DMacks (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		It has come to my attention recently that you did most of the cleanup at the conclusion of this Cfd on American tennis players. It was one of my first Cfds and, thanks to rookie mistakes by myself, I made a lot of unnecessary work for everyone. So believe me when I say REALLY appreciate the work you did to clean those up and I wanted to say thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You assisted me re the archiving on my talk page. I tried to shorten the archiving period from 30 to 7 days and this didn't work. And now that a month has passed, it doesn't appear the 30 days worked either. Could you please try again. Thank you! I really appreciate it. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:MaskedSinger,

The archive bot leaves the newest few topics regardless of their age. On your talkpage, you have two relevant settings:

| algo = old(7d)

| minthreadsleft = 4

so even though the remaining four topics are older than 7 days, it will always keep at least 4 topics un-archived. I just created a new topic, so let's see if in a day or so it archives the one oldest topic. It's older than your 7-day threshold, and archiving only one will leave your minimum of 4. DMacks (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks! MaskedSinger (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

it diddn't archive MaskedSinger (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it finally did (and indeed left 4 topics). *phew* that bot is painful to debug from what I've seen. DMacks (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I was about to write to you. Thanks for your help! MaskedSinger (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I posted two replies to discussions here: why were these edits reverted? Jarble (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, looks like a mis-click, Jarble. Sorry about that! DMacks (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is
  WP:AE
  .

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

MediaWiki message delivery 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Vijay's fan club supported AIADMK only in 2011 state election.

Vijay's fan club contested on its own in 2021 local body elections. AIDMK did not support his fan club in 2021. Both are different elections. Kindly undo your edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=1204636944 2409:4072:6C87:8B69:267:3118:869A:3791 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see I misread that detail (or wrote the wrong edit-summary). The ref does not appear to support the content regardless. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

the detail is there

'Thalapathy Vijay Makkal Iyakkam, which has transformed itself into a welfare organisation, had contested the local body elections in Tamil Nadu in October 2021 and won 115 seats out of 169 where it contested.'

https://www.thenewsminute.com/tamil-nadu/actor-vijay-speaks-students-meet-chennai-takes-potshot-political-parties-178622 2409:4072:6C87:8B69:994E:42A0:89FE:8846 (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure enough. This is all very weird...when I 'control-F' for "115" in the archived version that I am reading it does not find it. But when I scroll down manually I can find that sentence by eye. Will have to remember to be more careful with whatever browser mess this is. Apologies that my tech sucks today! DMacks (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, but it's overthinking it to delete it out of caution. Caitlyn Jenner and Chaz Bono are similar pages that include their birthnames. Like both of them, Elliot Page was known by the birthname prior to transition. Including a birthname in the infobox is not deadnaming, because Ellen Page is used within the first few words of the article. This is a biographical edit that also serves to tie the article to Page's earlier work. If you think this worth a longer discussion, I'm happy to start one on the Elliot Page talk page. Samp4ngeles (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is in opposition to long-standing and careful balance that seems based on talk-page consensus. Edit-warring against multiple other editors, at least some of whom cite strong WP policies/guidelines, over it is not a good look either. You've been here too long not to know that. DMacks (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello DMacks - could you please have a look at the Maltodextrin article for chemistry and organization? This is a topic in food science plagued by inconsistent classification, multiple definitions, and potential for public (and editor) confusion. Any edits or advice for further development would be helpful. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: I don't know much about this topic from a food perspective or specifics of its health effects but (as you've seen:) can work on some overall writing and from a chemistry/polymer-science perspective. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The chemistry/polymer issue has the challenge of both being ill-defined by experts in the discipline and difficult to grasp for the rest of us. Zefr (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection

.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2001:EE0:4BC6:FF80:DC97:2FF6:583C:A2A0 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion. Your proposal did not get consensus at Talk:Hydrogen iodide#Consistent grammar wording, and there was consensus against it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 209#I have came up with new consistency in some articles of chemical compounds. Gain consensus from most other readers and helpful volunteers staying. You don't have to like that outcome, but you can't unilaterally ignore it. DMacks (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

But your revert was unfair and not adaquately explained. It would be really better, helpful without going to any trouble by making a suggestion on the talk page. Considering that you involved edit warring, first and foremost, you shouldn't to get rid of getting blocked. 2001:EE0:4BC7:6D80:DC97:2FF6:583C:A2A0 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It has now been adequately explained to you in several places recently (though presumably you already knew, since it appears you participated in the previous edit sequences and discussions as well). Repeatedly making changes against consensus will end with you being blocked and/or pages being protected as necessary. DMacks (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyhow, getting the consistency through the articles is highly recommended. Your recent contributions are somehow disruptive by my sight, though you are acting in good faith. 2001:EE0:4BC9:3D20:DC97:2FF6:583C:A2A0 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. DMacks (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a conflict of interest per

WP:COI, hmmm?2001:EE0:4BC9:3D20:DC97:2FF6:583C:A2A0 (talk

) 10:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You're making less sense by the minute. Just stop before you get blocked. If you think you have a cause for action, take it to an admin notice-board. Until then, do not bother continuing here. DMacks (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-09

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The mobile visual editor is now the default editor for users who never edited before, at a small group of wikis. Research shows that users using this editor are slightly more successful publishing the edits they started, and slightly less successful publishing non-reverted edits. Users who defined the wikitext editor as their default on desktop will get the wikitext editor on mobile for their first edit on mobile as well. [41]
• The mw.config value wgGlobalGroups now only contains groups that are active in the wiki. Scripts no longer have to check whether the group is active on the wiki via an API request. A code example of the above is: if (/globalgroupname/.test(mw.config.get("wgGlobalGroups"))). [42]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 February. It will be on all wikis from 29 February (calendar). [43][44]

Future changes

• The right to change edit tags (changetags) will be removed from users in Wikimedia sites, keeping it by default for admins and bots only. Your community can ask to retain the old configuration on your wiki before this change happens. Please indicate in this ticket to keep it for your community before the end of March 2024.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes Sdkb The Night Watch East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• requests for adminship process
  .
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-10

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The Special:Book page (as well as the associated "Create a book" functionality) provided by the old Collection extension has been removed from all Wikisource wikis, as it was broken. This does not affect the ability to download normal books, which is provided by the Wikisource extension. [45]
• Wikitech now uses the next-generation Parsoid wikitext parser by default to generate all pages in the Talk namespace. Report any problems on the Known Issues discussion page. You can use the ParserMigration extension to control the use of Parsoid; see the ParserMigration help documentation for more details.
• Maintenance on etherpad is completed. If you encounter any issues, please indicate in this ticket.
• Gadgets allow interface admins to create custom features with CSS and JavaScript. The Gadget and Gadget_definition namespaces and gadgets-definition-edit user right were reserved for an experiment in 2015, but were never used. These were visible on Special:Search and Special:ListGroupRights. The unused namespaces and user rights are now removed. No pages are moved, and no changes need to be made. [46]
• A usability improvement to the "Add a citation" in Wikipedia workflow has been made, the insert button was moved to the popup header. [47]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 March. It will be on all wikis from 7 March (calendar). [48][49]

Future changes

• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [50]
• The HTML markup of headings and section edit links will be changed later this year to improve accessibility. See Heading HTML changes for details. The new markup will be the same as in the new Parsoid wikitext parser. You can test your gadget or stylesheet with the new markup if you add ?useparsoid=1 to your URL (more info) or turn on Parsoid read views in your user options (more info).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Images

Hello, I have added rationales for fair use in the file pages, such as File:Plutonocene.jpg; could you check them and remove the templates if you approve? Thank you. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like User:Explicit got to them with the delete button while I was at work. I'll check back and discuss with him as well later today. DMacks (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rash and uploaded the files again, but with proper reasoning for non-replaceable media. What should I do? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 02:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If they've got proper reasoning, then you don't need to do anything. I'll see if maybe we should undelete the old ones (recovering the old history) for completeness. DMacks (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are the files and their current status...

• File:Californium(III) chloride.jpg--I agree with FUR (I tweaked the wording and removed deletion tag)
• File:Neptunium(IV) oxalate.jpg--deleted, then you re-uploaded; I agree with FUR
• File:Americium(III) nitrate.jpg--deleted, then you re-uploaded; I agree with FUR
• File:Plutonocene.jpg--deleted, then you re-uploaded; I agree with FUR
• File:Uranocene crystals.jpg--deleted; I do not agree with FUR

Looking at current scientific literature, I see multiple research groups publishing synthetic work involving uranocene and related compounds. Even if it requires a license, it's clearly not unobtainable, the way weapons-grade, highly-radioactive, or ultrashort-halflife elements are. So I think someone could create a free photo. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

My knowledge on this topic is non-existent, so I will defer to the decision over to DMacks. Please feel free to undelete the page histories if you see it fit. ✗plicit 11:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Keresluna, I don't see a need to undelete the history, since it was the same uploader (you), within a few days, and would have to be rev-del'ed (unused non-free versions). But if you want (for example, to provide a rebuttal to the original deletion tagging), I'm happy to oblige. Let me know if there is anything further to do here. DMacks (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobel prize

Dear DMacks, I noticed that the Nobel prize page does not yet provide any study that describes the traits and characteristics of the Nobel prize laureates themselves: where they are from and live at the time of discovery, what level of education they have, their religious affiliation and a range of their other demographic and institutional traits. I feel including this information is important as it gives readers a sense of how new scientific discoveries and Nobel prize research emerge. Would you be fine with including one sentence (such as the following sentence) on these traits of the nobel prize discoveries in the Statistics section of the page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#Statistics Thank you

A 2024 study exploring all over 500 nobel-prize-winning scientists provides an overview of their demographic and institutional characteristics - finding that 54% of all nobel-prize discoveries were made by scientists who completed two or more degrees in different academic fields by the time of discovery; 30% of all nobel-prize discoveries were made by scientists at top 25 ranked universities; 7% of all nobel-prize discoveries were made by scientists over the age of 50 and only 1% over the age of 60.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobel prizes (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Krauss, A. (2024). "Science's greatest discoverers: a shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, top universities and older age". Nature, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 272.

Tech News: 2024-11

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 March. It will be on all wikis from 14 March (calendar). [51][52]
• After consulting with various communities, the line height of the text on the Minerva skin will be increased to its previous value of 1.65. Different options for typography can also be set using the options in the menu, as needed. [53]
• The active link color in Minerva will be changed to provide more consistency with our other platforms and best practices. [54]
• Structured data on Commons will no longer ask whether you want to leave the page without saving. This will prevent the “information you’ve entered may not be saved” popups from appearing when no information have been entered. It will also make file pages on Commons load faster in certain cases. However, the popups will be hidden even if information has indeed been entered. If you accidentally close the page before saving the structured data you entered, that data will be lost. [55]

Future changes

• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [56][57]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The notice "Language links are at the top of the page" that appears in the Vector 2022 skin main menu has been removed now that users have learned the new location of the Language switcher. [58]
• IP info feature displays data from Spur, an IP addresses database. Previously, the only data source for this feature was MaxMind. Now, IP info is more useful for patrollers. [59]
• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. [60][61][62]
• Communities can now customize the default reasons for undeleting a page by creating MediaWiki:Undelete-comment-dropdown. [63]

Problems

• RevisionSlider is an interface to interactively browse a page's history. Users in right-to-left languages reported RevisionSlider reacting wrong to mouse clicks. This should be fixed now. [64]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar). [65][66]
• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. [67][68]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2024

This Month in Education

Volume 13 • Issue 2 • February 2024

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue

• 2 new courses in Students Write Wikipedia Starting this February
• More two wiki-education partnerships
• Open Education Week 2024 in Mexico
• Reading Wikipedia in Bolivia, the community grows
• Wiki Education Philippines promotes OERs utilization
• Wiki Loves Librarians, Kaduna
• Wiki Workshop 2024 CfP – Call for Papers Research track

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony 18:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)