User talk:Donald Albury/Archive 14

This page 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.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• WP:GS/PAGEANT
  .

Technical news

• Sysops will
  interface administrators
  when that group was introduced.
• discretionary sanctions
  block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that
  American Politics 2 Arbitration case
  ).

---

Thank you for correctien Furlong in Haush: west instead of east. BonteKraai (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP's wording may have been poor, but it has basis in fact, and is sourced in the article. There were nine survivors of rosewood who received compensation from the state. Here is a link that mentions that, and is additionally sourced elsewhere in the article. I'm not changing anything, just passing along info.Jacona (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Jacona: I find your interpretation of the IP's edit to be generous. I think it is quite a stretch to go from reports that only nine survivors claimed compensation and were able to prove they had lived in Rosewood at the time, to saying there were only nine survivors of the massacre. The IP seems to have a history of adding things to WP without worrying about whether they can be verified.
• Checking back on the item edited, I noticed the cited source did not support the statement. I found that I had edited the sentence to list Mary Hall Daniels as the last living survivor back in May 2018, but I somehow used the archived url from the previous citation in the new citation. My mistake, but, if anyone has noticed in 2-1/2 years, they haven't said anything. I have fixed the citation. - Donald Albury 20:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a
  speedy deletion criterion
  or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the
  2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page
  .

---

Category:Ediacaran biota has been nominated for renaming. 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. DexDor ^(talk) 17:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Mary Harrison wasn't married with her father ;).. it's a lot "ambiguo" if your language isn't english ;).. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. The item in the DAB says, "Mary Harrison McKee (1858–1930), only daughter of President Benjamin Harrison and his first wife". Mary Harrison McKee was the daughter of Benjamin Harrison and Caroline Scott Harrison, who was Benjamin Harrison's first wife. How is the item ambiguous? Note that Harrison had a second daughter with his second wife. Harrison's First Lady was his wife, Caroline. Mary acted as his First Lady after her mother's death, but she was not his First Lady. - Donald Albury 15:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I have an issue with the fact you removed my update. I am a media source that mails a magazine to those areas. Community Newspapers and the Miami Herald have links and are listed. Why can I not be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:8402:290:A8E5:4C9B:4CAF:629C (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Donald Albury,

It took me awhile to figure out how to communicate with you on here but I was able to find the link. I do not have a good memory but I found the research I needed and the sources I needed as well. They are academically correct but some are conflicted because the records are dated incorrectly so I am not sure how to notify people of something like that. Please realize when you are dealing with "Factual History" that dates and times for certain things may be wrong or incorrect. In addition, I am a historian I am not an academic genius even though I have been in school for 25 years. Thank you for the edits you were able to make or the changes you were able to make as I was pretty sure someone would be able to figure it out if they noticed my poor editing. In addition, I will send you a link so you can learn more about the page I was editing.

https://www.bmsworldmission.org/heritage/jamaica/

Thomas “as in "Thomas Burche", was his slave name. This is seen as offensive to Jamaican people in this era and it is against human rights to dead name a person even if it is factual history but you have permission to write down the facts about Thomas Burche using his real name as Jamaican people would prefer it that way as it is part of and relating to Black History and Black Slavery that happened in the 1700-1930s era. The word Brutal is the real definition that White supremacist used to call Black people during the Dark days. William Knibb is an Honourable persons of Jamaica and is my Great Great Great Grandfather so I would like to restore his image back to what it is suppose to be as I am his ancestor. I'm from foster care so there is no conflict of interest when it comes to the research.

Thomas Knibb is considered a Half Brother but he was adopted by the Knibb family and freed so he is considered family to the Knibb family heritage line. a If you look up or research into Black slavery and the link I provided and read it carefully you will understand that William Knibb adopted "Thomas Burche" as his own brother and he also was able to legally change it so that Thomas Knibb was his real name under United Kingdom Law of the 1800 era. Furthermore, William Knibb and Thomas Knibb are (step-siblings) under William Knibb's fathers' last name as this was necessary to free Thomas from slavery. Definition of Brutal in 1824 literally means Burche. (Reference: Oxford Dictionary the Hard Copy version of the actual Book as I own the Book myself so I can give you the date the book was published but that is not in this version of the book so you let me know how to proceed with that.

You made the changes and other people have so that William Knibb is connected to the Baptist people as well as mentioned as a Baptist Missionary. Also, this helps historians a lot as I am a family historian that is not related to my family as I am from foster care so I am trying my best to help out with all the old family history of theirs as I am considered an outside source of information. Anyways, have a wonderful day and thank you for your time. Furthermore, you can see that I am actually a pretty good writer so be careful how you address me please. I do not like to be spoken to as if I am some sort of person with low intellect through written communication so please be respectful as I am a human being that is disabled so doing this is not easy for me.

Sincerely,

King Knibb — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingKnibbs (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@KingKnibbs: Please keep all discussion about the contents of an article on the article's talk page, in this case, Talk:William Knibb. Please also read the Wikipedia policies at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Any information in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable from a reliable source, and you must be able to cite such reliable sources if anything you add to an article is challenged or likely to be challenged. If you feel that "facts" in a reliable source are wrong, then you must cite another source, equally or more reliable than the first source, to counter such facts. When reliable sources disagree, we can note that disagreement in the article. - Donald Albury 13:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment
  .

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

Hi - Thanks for your communication. I should have cited my source: ^[1] (For the comments on Achebe and Outpost of Progress.) Jemima Jemima Melville (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for some of the clean-up. However, you've changed some citations from "Najder" to "nadjer" or "nadjet".

Nihil novi (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: The "nadjer" mis-spelling was mine, I'm sorry to say, but "Nadjet" was already there, ao I can't take credit for it. I think I fixed those errors. - Donald Albury 01:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.

There is now a "Cite error" tag in the "Joseph Conrad" article lead.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Jemima Melville (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Hi, I think the material I added on 'An Outpost' has been removed. I referenced the source above: it is by a leading Conrad scholar, published in the leading Taiwanese academic journal, as a result of a conference in Taiwan. best wishes, Jemima Jemima Melville (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Albury, it just belatedly dawned on me that you have completed overhauling the notes and references in the "Joseph Conrad" article. Perhaps I had been subconsciously looking forward to your expert company at the article. You have made a tremendous difference to its quality, and I am sure that anyone who reads it will appreciate your work.

Should you have any suggestions for clarifying or improving the text, they too would be greatly appreciated.

With best wishes to you and yours in the new year,

Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: The article is on my watchlist because I followed a problem editor to it something like 9 or 10 years ago. While I have copies of some of Conrad's novels (I first read Nostromo 60 years ago), I am not a Conrad scholar, and I do not have access to reliable sources about him. While I will fix what I perceive to be bad edits, I am not able to contribute substantially to the content of the article. - Donald Albury 20:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The
  standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion
  to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

Hello, Regarding Special:Diff/1005124192. This is needed as part of maintenance and will break soon if not changed (we are planning to completely drop "document.write"). If you don't want the Lupin popups, you can simply all the code for that. Thank you. Ladsgroup^overleg 13:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Donald Albury/Documentation/Barrier islands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don’t think this deserves to be an article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello there you shall: Next time I will add the reference for the city of port Charlotte and any other times in the future  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothereyoushall (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC) 

Hi Donald Albury, I saw you are an administrator and I need some advices regarding this user Gomes000 (talk · contribs).

He is constantly putting former Portuguese provinces, like the Estremadura Province (1936–1976) on every article he can find and inserting them on wrong categories in the Category:Municipalities of Portugal. Even reaching as far as putting places, like the underwater Nazaré Canyon, on a region, which is just insane. I warned him about this a few months ago on his talk page but he deleted it. Besides that, none of its edits can be reverted, all he does is this and he doesn't know a thing about grammar (even Portuguese). Don't get me wrong, these provinces have their place and their use, especially in the history section, but not the main intro of the article. There are other (up to date) regions he can use but he strictly uses old provinces.

What can I do? Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Give me a day or two to look at this, and I will let you know what looks good to me. - Donald Albury 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Some observations:

• You left only one message on Gomes000's talk page, back in November. In that message you said some of his edits were "unacceptable", including this, in which he removed a stub notice from the article. While individual judgments may vary on when an article is no longer a stub, I have removed stub notices from articles that were shorter than that article, and I find his action to be perfectly acceptable. His removal of the "Expand" maintenance notice without explanation here, is problematic, but worth no more than the first-level warning at Template:Uw-tdel1. You also stated that four other edits were unacceptable, but did not specify which edits, which was not helpful. Please be less quick to threaten someone with blocking, especially when you communicate with them for the first time.
• I see several edit wars. An edit war requires at least two participants. Per
  WP:BRD
  , If a user makes a bold edit, you then revert, and the first editor reverts you, rather than entering into an edit war, you should start a discussion about the disputed edit on the article talk page and invite the other editor to join that discussion. If the other editor fails to engage in that discussion, then you may seek other remedies.

I understand how frustrating it can be to see another editor making changes to an article that you feel are detrimental to the article. If there is not an established consensus for some point in an article, then you can start a discussion to try to established a consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, and incorporates the views and styles of many editors.

I will leave a message on Gomes000's talk page advising him to follow the advice of BRD, and to engage in discussion when his edits are challenged. - Donald Albury 14:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I thank you for that, but I feel like he's a user who won't engage in a conversation and my main problem wasn't the other edits he did, but more the edits in which he included old provinces (most of them are from Estremadura) and he stalked my recent edits to include others. He can include them in the History section appropriately all he wants, but not on the header of the article. Even more so because Portugal has districts and intermunicipal communities. Look at Serras de Aire e Candeeiros Natural Park for example, it is way more understandable for a reader to say the park is located between the Districts of Leiria and Santarém than to put three large provinces that are not used since 1976 like he did.

I think his edits are disruptive and not constructive at all. And I mean Portugal had a lot of historical provinces along the years, and he puts those from Estado Novo, a time were Angola and Mozambique were part of Portugal. It just doesn't make any sense to put provinces.

I know you can't do much about this, but he's the type of user who will just keep reverting again and again even with warnings. Tha's why I stopped reverting his edits.

I'll try writing him on his talk page, but if he doesn't respond or deletes my comment, then he's just purely vandalizing the articles. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: I saw only one post from you on his talk page, two months ago. Users can delete comments on their talk pages. One comment deleted from their talk page does not establish a pattern. I will also point out that I do not see any behavior from Gomes000 that could be characterized as vandalism. The policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism has a very specific definition of vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with that policy before accusing a user of vandalism. What I do see is an editor with their own viewpoint of what is suitable in an article, and who does not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and conventions. If you try to engage a user in discussion about their edits and they revert to their preferred version without a consensus having been reached to accept that version, or if the user makes other edits that go against a consensus, then you can raise the issue of that behavior with an admin or at an appropriate board. - Donald Albury 20:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again @Donald Albury:, as I foresaw earlier, the user continues to edit and revert despite knowing there is someone who disagrees on his edits and writes him on his talk page, proving once more that he doesn't care and does not want to follow Wikipedia rules. In my opinion, this user is better blocked, he is not improving Wikipedia whatsoever, instead, he's making a political statement. For reference, since you are not Portuguese, there are some people (mostly old people) who do not agree with the abolition of the provinces in 1976, almost like there's people who don't believe in the moonlanding, the provinces are still occasionally used when we want to refer to a cultural past (especially Alentejo) or an exact delimited area of distribution that is better expressed as that province, even I use them sometimes. This is the wrong way to use them, in an uncontrollable and not relevant way. I'm sorry that I keep pushing this subject to the surface but I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Timothy2b, you undid my edit on the Hollywood, Florida page. The only edit I made was to the abbreviation of its climate type. The climate section states that it has a tropical rainforest climate, which is correct, but it said that the Köppen abbreviation for that climate type was Am. Am is actually the abbreviation used for the tropical monsoon climate, Af is the one used for tropical rainforest climates. You can check yourself on the article about the [Köppen climate classification]]. I only want to change Am to Af, so the abbreviation matches the climate type. Thanks. Timothy2b (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Donald,

I've taken notice of your attentiveness to detail on the edit I suggested. As a living, breathing descendant who very well practices our way of life from my earliest memories, I can wholeheartedly assure you that my people are not a relic of the past as the colonization of our history teaches. Frankly it is shocking to still have to defend our existence and the magic of our resistance.

For a "credible" source, I kindly invite you to read through coverage from the Smithsonian Magazine, National Geographic, and data from the 2010 U.S. Census and 2020 U.S. Census. Though I am sure it is enough to simply exist and not need to find a subjectively accredited source to "support" the notion of my reality, I hope that direction can provide you more clarity as to the level of assurance you may have been searching for.

Respectfully, Aurialís Alvarez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.120.250 (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The place to discuss that is the talk page of the article. - Donald Albury 14:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A
  subcriterion a
  , which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A
  request for comment
  asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a
  protection
  .

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with
  just block the /64
  range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at
  WP:RfPP
  , and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been
  Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322
  ).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

Re Archaic period (North America), Milanich has a new edition of the book out. Does it use BC/AD/BP/BCE/CE or what? I tried , unsuccessfully, to find out online, and I don't want to buy a copy. But you're a Florida guy. I bet you have a copy! Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I have a paperback copy of the 1994 edition. The University of Florida Library has released a digital copy of the 1994 edition under a CCA 4.0 license, which you can access here. As far as I know, Milanich used BC/AD throughout the book. I've really only seen BCE/CE in archaeological works more recent than 1994. The BP dates for Horr's Island are not from Milanich, but from Russo, which had become a dead link. I have now recovered the archived link. - Donald Albury 01:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, Donald Albury, but I did not engage edit-war with Ddum5347. For I reverted his edit only once today, which is 30th Mar, not 26th Mar. I already saw the talk page of Ddum5347, and I think there's been a misunderstanding, for I did not revert or edit the page of gaur in 26th Mar. The page was fine until 27th Mar, where Ddum5347 edited it after he was unblocked. I only notice that today. After he reverted mine, it was Kevmin who reverted his edit. Please check the revision history of gaur again.--Manwë986 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Manwë986, please see here, where Ddum changed the sentence, and the next edit, here, where you reverted Ddum. The same thing happened today. I don't care how long you wait before reverting someone, if you and another user are changing the same sentence back and forth, that is an edit war. Most of the time, a slow motion edit war may fly under the radar, but it hasn't been that long since you and Ddum were edit warring before. In any case, Ddum has now been blocked indefinitely. He may eventually convince someone to let him come back, but in the meantime, if you have a conflict with anyone on the contents of an article, discuss it on the talk page rather than reverting. - Donald Albury 23:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I seen that in the revision history, Donald Albury. And I only seen the 27th Mar edit on 30th Mar, and I reverted it. Yes, the only proofs I have are my words and my eyes. And I use my mobile phone to edit, and I don't visit Wikipedia very often. I don't shrink responsibility for that edit war with Ddum. So far, the only user who have opinions about that article is Ddum. And there's been unpleasant remarks made between him and BhagyaMani on 11th Mar, about edit warring and facts, and the word "dreadful" was included. Also, what I mean in my previous reply is this: Manwe reverted you on 26 March. You reverted Manwe today. Manwe reverted you again today". I didn't do that on 26th Mar. If you are referring to the edit war starting at 11th Mar, I don't object it. In conclusion, the other users have no opinions about that article, and I don't have any conflicts with anyone about the original information within the article. Sorry about the mess.--Manwë986 (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a
  subcriterion a
  has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A
  discretionary sanctions procedure
  is open until April 25.

---

HI i have added things to do page to Hilton daytona beach , I think that was useful for people searching for things to do near the beach. And i found the link useful https://www.daytonahilton.com/things-to-do

Let me know why it is considered wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.250.47.135 (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipedia is not a guide book and articles aren't meant to be travel tip sites. Articles are about the subject, not what is near the subject that tourists might find fun to go do. What you added violates our policy on

WP:SPAM.Heiro

18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)\

Ok Thanks understood. Thanks for the guidance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.250.47.135 (talk • contribs) 1:55. 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Donald, I'd just like to know what exactly are the criteria for what constitutes the 3RR. I believe I have someone who may have broken the rule, but I am unsure if it infringes upon the rule. Thanks Ddum5347 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ddum5347: The 3RR rule is stated at Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule. If you observe edit-warring, and warning notices to the participants have not stopped the edit warring, you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - Donald Albury 00:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I know that the word "moors" is equivalent to Arab but the word "moor" was an insult and must be corrected as will it was called to flipino , sri lankas , indian and many of diffrent people the article should be more clear and wrote "arabs". The word "Nasrid" is the name of the kingdom, or at least "Emirate of Granada" should be written instead of the word small moor state Samlaxcs (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Samlaxcs, please discuss this at the article talk page. - Donald Albury 21:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• Consensus was found in a previous RfC
  for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The
  discretionary sanctions procedure
  was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

After their latest shenanigan's, I took it to ANI. You are sort of mentioned, so weigh in if you wish There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Heiro 06:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: Well, that went fast. Thank you for doing that. I see that Epictrex has "retired". We shall see. - Donald Albury 12:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, went faster than I thought it would. Blanking the ANI twice didn't help them any. And re: retirement, in the short time they have been here they have retired several times. I'm more worried about the multiple IPs they have been using, I get the feeling we'll be playing whack-a-mole for awhile. If you look at the IPs here from May 5-May 8, those are all Epictrex. And most of those IPs were used to edit other pages, along with their named account. All of their IPs geolocate to Sparks, Nevada. They have been using IPs and their named account to edit a whole host of articles for at least a week, apparently. I'm not sure if it was nefarious, to avoid detection since so many editors were starting to scrutinize their edits, or they just didn't bother to log in 3/4ths of the time. Heiro 15:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: Yeah, half the retirements I've seen over the years lasted less than a month. Considering the cluelessness involved, I don't doubt we'll be seeing more of his work. - Donald Albury 17:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Want to take bets on this new account (Rui Beech (talk · contribs)), that has made 2 edits to an Epictrex draft, is a sockpuppet? Heiro 00:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: And once again, I am late to the party. - Donald Albury 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, they have a tendency to push it. No one really paid attention to my ANI message until they popped up after an hour of silence to troll my talk page, and I made another request. Heiro 14:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: I was going to link to an appropriate meme, but the site is blacklisted. - Donald Albury 15:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:ToBeFree#What are the odds?. Heiro 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Like that buzzing in your ear. You think you've swatted it, but it comes right back. - Donald Albury 18:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of places named after Saint Joseph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Joseph, Florida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you left a message on my talk page about the edit on Lighthouse. I did use the preview button prior to saving - and it showed the thumbnail correctly. This is how Preview appeared. But the thumbnail still shows as broken after the edit. It currently shows as broken after your edit as well. This is how it currently appears, and how it appeared before my edits. What do you suppose is causing this error? HamEx35 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@HamEx35: Found it. Another editor had recently left a beginning hidden note marker (<!--) with no closing marker, which left several sections hidden (until another hidden note, which closed it). For some reason that I do not understand, it also caused that image formatting to not work, even though other images after the hidden note was closed, but before the Range lights section, were not affected. My apologies for the message. - Donald Albury 13:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice work on the debugging! I'd been racking my brain about that but didn't think to check outside of the Range Lights section. HamEx35 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@HamEx35: I found the diff where the image formatting stopped working. At first, it made no sense because nothing in the Range lights section had been changed. I finally realized that edit had left an odd bit of useless code earlier in the article. I removed that bit of code, and everything worked again. I have no idea what was going on. - Donald Albury 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Don, I have never previously edited anything on Wikipedia, and have not learned how to add sources as yet. Rebecca Flagerty was my family ancestor and left Sand Key by about 1840 with her second husband, Capt Fredick Neill, who also became the keeper for a period after their marriage in 1834, both later found back in Baltimore in the census records of 1840, 1850, and 1860. Aside from that, there are numerous hard sources on the lighthouse and its keepers noting which one actually died in the 1846 hurricane, Joshua Appleby. Here is one from the USCG Historian's Office online page: https://www.history.uscg.mil/Browse-by-Topic/Assets/Land/All/Article/1988486/sand-key-lighthouse/ Here is another, a reprint from the US Lighthouse Society: https://uslhs.org/sites/default/files/articles_pdf/sand_key.pdf

I should probably have learned how to add sources, and will go back to do so, but did not want the erroneous info retained on the page as it has been for some time. If you would add one of these sources, and put the correction back in, I would appreciate it why I deal with the learning curve. As long as it is correct, credit or other, is unimportant to me.

Thanks, Allan Garner

Allan Garner (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allan Garner:, I think this needs to be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Sand Key Light. I am copying your above comments to the section "Keeper in 1846" on that page. - Donald Albury 20:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of some discrepancies in some accounts, but I think the noted sources are clear and some individuals simply made some errors. As per some additional documentation, as Rebecca was a family ancestor, I also have her marriage record from Monroe FL in 1934 (married at Sand Key Light), her second husband is then noted as taking over as keeper (also per the list of keepers). He is then recorded as "resigning" prior to 1840, and proof Rebecca was no longer there in 1846, are then census records of 1840 for her and her second husband, her again in 1850, and 1860 in Baltimore.

That would all certainly seem to me to refute any account she died there in 1846, still the keeper, having not remarried and with her first husband's name.

Edit: The noted USCG Historian's site makes an initial statement of Rebecca staying 16 years after her first husband's death, and dying there in 1846, but below that, on the same page, it lists all the subsequent keepers, including her second husband, which contradicts the first statement, also noting the correct keeper dying there in 1846. The reprint from the Lighthouse Society referenced, goes into much greater detail, and is also supported by additional records found.

Allan Garner (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Allan Garner (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allan Garner:, please be aware that Wikipedia has a policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires that everything in an article be verifable from reliable sources. Original research is not allowable as a source, which means that any documents you have which have not been discussed in a reliable, published source, cannot be used in Wikipedia. The policy on reliable sources sets out what qualifies a source for use in Wikipedia. I have opened a discussion on the article talk page to see what other experienced editors think about the use of the Lighthouse Society article. That is the appropriate place to discuss this. - Donald Albury 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Once I sort it out, one published master's thesis, Monroe Co. Fl marriage records, and the US census records, may all be quoted in any edits, all reliable sources per the guidelines and not "my original research". Regardless of conflicting comments elsewhere on Rebecca, I hope that will suffice. Thanks Allan Garner (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a
  Reliable Sources Noticeboard
  to discuss disputed sources.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• WP:REFUND
  even after the namespace is removed.
• An
  TFAs
  .

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised
  COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion
  at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

Thanks for that. I've come across an editor who is adding a significant number of towns

) 12:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I just happen to be familiar with the history of Rosewood. Your edit did bring the categorization to my attention. There are a number of places in Florida that could be added to the category, but I'm not sure how easily I could find reliable sources saying so. - Donald Albury 13:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Albury,

I am not sure exactly which edit I made on Andrew Young's entry, but I got your message about it. I am not an active Wikipedia editor and while I very much admire the time that you and others put in, I don't feel I have the time myself to become an active participant in this way. I mean no disrespect; it is important work. I simply saw a problem and tried to fix it. And, truth be told, I find the complex system of protocols on Wikipedia for explaining the reasoning too hard to follow. I apologize.

At any rate, I think that the change I made had to do with this sentence just below, and I am going to try to explain why I made it.

On August 10, news of the meeting became public when the Mossad leaked its illegally-acquired transcript of the meeting first to Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and then through his office to Newsweek.[13]

I have one grammatical point and then a series of substantive points.

1. There should be no hyphen in "illegally acquired." When an adverb ending in -ly precedes a participle, no hyphen is used. This is spelled out very clearly in The Chicago Manual of Style, rule 5.91: "A two-word phrasal adjective that begins with an adverb ending in -ly is not hyphenated." And also in rule 7.82: "Compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective or participle (such as largely irrelevant or smartly dressed) are not hyphenated either before or after a noun, since ambiguity is nearly impossible."

2. More important, the sentence in question is poorly sourced and it tendentiously flags and overemphasizes certain claims with unsavory implications.

a) Let's begin with the claim the "Mossad" "leaked" its transcript of the meeting to the Israeli prime minister. This sentence uses the word "leak" incorrectly, falsely imputing or implying conspiratorial wrongdoing. Intelligence services are supposed to share intelligence with their political superiors. The CIA does not "leak" information to the U.S. president. It "provides" him with information. Here, the word "leaked" is used to suggest that some improper or non-routine behavior was occurring this should be fixed.

b) The reference to the "Mossad" should not be there. It is not clear that the Mossad had anything to do with it, and the organization often is invoked to conjure up the specter of illegitimate Jewish or Israeli power or influence.

c) The factual basis of this sentence is weak. It is sourced to a sensational 1990 book of dubious veracity, "By Way of Deception." Here is the New York Times review of that book by the longtime U.S. national security investigative reporter David Wise (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/books/what-did-mossad-know-and-when.html). I'll quote a few paragraphs, but the review clearly suggests the book is not to be relied upon:

By Way of Deception, written with Claire Hoy, a Canadian journalist, describes, in minute detail, Mr. Ostrovsky's training as a fledgling case officer. How to detect surveillance, how to meet an Arab agent in a cafe (and how not to), how to recruit an agent and so forth. This portion, the first half of the book, has the ring of a firsthand account.

With some exceptions, the second half of the book discusses operations in which Mr. Ostrovsky did not participate and which, in many cases, had occurred years before he joined Israeli intelligence. Since these operations are also presented in abundant detail, with descriptions of complex events complete with dozens of names and dates, it appears that the authors relied, at least in part, on published sources.

While it is difficult to judge the accuracy of many of these stories, one should bear in mind that although the Government of Israel has validated Mr. Ostrovsky's identity - its lawsuit confirmed that he is who he says he is - it has not validated his information. Avi Pazner, a press adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, has called the book an amalgamation of very few facts and a lot of lies. Isser Harel, a former chief of Mossad, has said in an affidavit that the book, by naming names of intelligence officers, has placed them in a life-threatening situation. ...

Less persuasive is Mr. Ostrovsky's claim that Yitzhak Hofi, the head of Mossad, personally participated in the murder of two minor Palestine Liberation Organization representatives in Athens in the mid-1970's. That the chief of Mossad would risk exposure of himself and Israeli intelligence by serving as a hit man strains credulity, as does much else in the book. ...

Much of By Way of Deceit reads like a supermarket tabloid.

OK, that's all from Wise.

In contrast, read a well-respected history such as Jonathan Alter's recent biography of Jimmy Carter, "His Very Best" (https://www.google.com/books/edition/His_Very_Best/xbjIDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0), p. 484, which says "Young also made the mistake of telling Yehuda Blum, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, that the meeting [with Terzi] was, in fact, substantive" and that this led the Israelis to make an issue of the Young-Terzi meeting.

So the source for the current Wikipedia language is dubious and unreliable and inaccurately casts the Israeli action -- by invoking the Mossad, the word "illegally" (much intelligence is acquired through illegal surveillance), and the word "leaked" -- in a shadowy, conspiratorial light.

d) The imputation of vast, disproportionate powers to Jews, Zionists, and Israel is a classic anti-Semitic trope. (The use of "the Mossad" as an agent in such anti-Semitic conspiracies -- see, for example, "the Mossad did 9/11" anti-Semitic conspiracies.) In fact, Israel had legitimate reason to object to the Young-Terzi meeting, as did American Jews and other American supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

To review: The statement is not quite true (highly distorted, partial and less than accurate in its account of how the news of the meeting came to be known). It is tendentious (the language used seems to promote a nefarious, conspiratorial interpretation). And, perhaps unintentionally, this misleading, tendentious cast traffics in anti-Semitic tropes.

For all these reasons, I think the sentence should be changed to: a. remove reference to the Mossad (since Young told the Israeli ambassador about it) b. remove "leaked" c. Include information, which can be found in Alter's book and other reputable sources, about why Young held the meeting and why people objected.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.157.185 (talk • contribs)

As it appears you are not familiar with the policies, guidelines, and customs of Wikipedia, I would like to offer a few tips:

1) Please sign your comments on talk and project pages (other than articles) by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

2) It helps other users understand what you were doing if you include a brief explanation of your edit in the edit summary section before you save your edit. If I do not know why you deleted some material, and a valid reason for deletion is not obvious to me, I will usually revert such deletions.

3) The

Bold, revert, discuss cycle is one way in which disputes can be settled on Wikipedia. You boldly edited, I reverted, and now you are opening a discussion. However, we prefer that discussions about the content and form of an article take place on the talk page of that article, in part, because other editors interested in the article are more likely to become aware of the discussion if it is on the talk page. Please start a new section at Talk:Andrew Young

to discuss your concerns.

4) Please keep your comments as brief as possible. Your edit that I reverted had deleted "illegally-acquired" (and changed "its" to "a"). Most of your discussion above is far outside the scope of that edit. Very long comments in discussions are often marked "tl:dr" (wikt:too long; didn't read).

As I said, please open a new section on the article talk page to discuss the edit and reversion in question. You are free to raise the other issues you have with the content of the article, but please do not conflate those concerns with the very specific issue of the edit I reverted. - Donald Albury 19:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• An
  G13
  speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an
  requested move discussions
  .

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

You are recipient no.

) 14:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned comment wrongly attributed to me

I’m not sure why you credited this addition to this IP address [1], but according to the edit history, it was added fifteen years ago by a named user. I’m pretty sure I had properly attributed it to that user, though I can’t check since the edit’s been purged from the history; either way, it’s now been corrected. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not notice how old the comment was. I have now restored your edit to visibility. - Donald Albury 18:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Boxes1999 (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Donald, regarding my edits to the Key Biscayne wikipedia page my intention was solely to revert it to it's previous state as the new climate data entered is demonstrably false, the station used has been malfunctioning since 2012, replacing Key Biscayne's climate section with observations from the nearest operational weather station, Miami Beach (data can be found on the Miami Beach wikipedia page) would be acceptable as well. Thanks!

23:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)~~

Thanks for your edit warring notification. Per your message, FYI, I have asked the other user (via edit summaries) repeatedly to start a talk page discussion, per WP:BRD, but he has yet to do so, so I went ahead and did so. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A
  high-risk templates
  .
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A
  TFAs
  has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

Mr. Albury,

You were the admin that spoke to me and user @A455bcd9 about the edit warring that took place a few week ago.

Well, this user has come back and reverted my edits once again on the “Levantine Arabic” article. I want to point out that he actually re implemented the information that was in dispute while i was gone. When i just came back, i saw it. But i said i was going to make the compromise for the sake of ending the dispute permanently and made ok with it. I simply re-organized the summary and added more specified information of the info already there in the same section , and he came and deleted it.

He has been maintaining a grip over that page for the longest time and as i mentioned before, deletes also the contributions of other users that may not fit his POV pushing. Look at the edits just in the past week alone, you will immediately lose count.

Mr. Albury, he has become a real big problem. You warned that if he were to revert my edits again, you will block him. Please deal with him accordingly.

He has opened up yet another case on me in the admin board also. The previous one is the one you managed. He is making every attempt to try and get me in trouble so he can go back on that page and delete factually accurate information to suit his agenda. thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

203.192.209.74 is my ip address and I would to state that the edits that have been done using this ip address was not done by me. I honestly don't know who did it. I am referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.192.209.74 . I am sorry for any inconvinience used . YellowSulphur49 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, I hope you're having a good day. I have a question about RI. turnout. Should there be a 7.6pp next to the turnout? RonMcDonald721 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

7.4* RonMcDonald721 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi someone else said it was ok so I added it. Thank you though RonMcDonald721 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following
  high-risk templates
  .
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the
  are authorized
  for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

HI! I recently made some edits to the Page-Ladson page, which you have reverted. These were correct edits... I am not much of a wikipedia editor, so if I did the html wrong or something, I apologize. However, the article talking about IUP archaeologists working at the site is literally the last thing mentioned in the current article about work at the site, and since they were just visitors and it was a general interest paper for IUP, I think having it there is giving it false prominence. Further, reading the talk page and the page history, apparently at least one person thinks Halligan is claiming all credit for the finds at Page-Ladson, which is definitely not the case. All the articles written by her research team clearly give credit to the previous work by Dunbar and Webb and in the supplemental to the 2016 article, there is a great deal of discussion of the previous work at the site, but more importantly, Dunbar is one of the authors of the 2016 article and was co-PI on the 2012 project. One of the editors has linked several popular press articles in which he claims that Dunbar is not being given enough credit. Given that they were written by journalists, and not the research team, this seems patently unfair to the PI's on the project, especially since Dunbar was one of them. This edit was thus made to clarify Dunbar's contribution to the recent research at the site as well. THanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.44.29 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack-o%27-lantern Here is the passage which seems to me to be reasonable to excise: "Candy, Audrey and Hilarion this shows why is not a good idea to use this site." I hope I haven't broken convention to point this out but it seemed like an easy thing to fix. Thank you,

         Pine The Tree  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PineTheTree (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 

@PineTheTree: Thank you for catching that. I thought it was gone. - Donald Albury 15:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for PP for the article, as I'm now at 3RR against what adds up to 4 IP s over the last 24-30 hours. Request page is backlogged at this time, so not sure when an admin will get around to applying the protection. I've asked for 1-3 months, but I wouldn't mind a year to be honest (or effing permanent to be really honest). This has been a continuing ongoing issue with that page for years. Heiro 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: Semi for 1 week. If it starts again after that we can go for longer protection, but I think that should come from another admin who has less involvement in the Taino article than I do. - Donald Albury 12:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I assumed you consider your self involved and not able to do it yourself, I was just letting you know I had asked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Heiro 14:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone might come at me for that adding the protection, but I consider the IP edits to be disruption, and fringe. I will hold back from further admin actions on the article. - Donald Albury 15:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please identify the trojan-infected website(s) linked from the Etymology section of the Sappony article edit. The previous revision has a citation that is original research and is not notable - http://www.native-languages.org/iaq18.htm. It includes another citation without including the reply which follows it http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/2013-June/009003.html. The first citation in the section fails verification. Federer20201 (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Federer20201: There are three citations in the material you added today that link to different pages at listserv dot linguistlist dot org that the malware protection program that I use has blocked due to the site likely being infected with a trojan. One of the citations you added today indicates that you verified the contents of that site today. If you have viewed that site today, I recommend that you take steps to discover whether that site has infected your computer with a trojan. If you see material in the Sappony article that you believe is not supported by reliable sources, including original research, then indicate those parts using a suitable template, such as Template:Original research inline, Template:Failed verification, Template:Citation needed, or others. Do not remove material that has sources cited that has been in the article for a while without a strong reason rooted in policy (for instance, if you think a source is not reliable, you can look on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see if it is listed there as unreliable, or ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to obtain a community determination of the reliability of the source), or opening a discussion on the talk page and waiting for a reasonable time for other editors to respond. Removing material, whether or not it has citations to sources, without an adequate explanation in the edit summary, mey result in your edit being reverted. - Donald Albury 02:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury:The section already has a citation linking to linguistlist.org. If you are removing links because that site is supposedly infected with a trojan, why does the original link remain? A scan of linguistlist.org at virustotal.com shows it clean on the roughly 100 detection lists it scans. The computer I'm using is running Windows Defender it does not categorize any of the specific links from linguistlist.org as malware. Nor do any of the lists that report to virustotal.com. What tool are you claiming is reporting this site infected? Have you checked for false positives? At your suggestion I have added three more failed verification tags to the existing one, and three citation needed tags. The links for this section were retrieved 5 months ago. Is 5 months considered 'old'on Wikipedia?Federer20201 (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The
  2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process
  has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

Hi Donald, I intended to leave an image that I took while Diving at Pickles Reef. I am having a hard time adding the image. Wikimedia commons is giving me trouble and Wikipedia did not have an upload option. The image is right here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/firststagescuba/51578173524/

I have a ton of pictures and videos of dive sites and sea creatures at these locations but as a brand new contributor I am having a little trouble adding the content to the wiki's.

Thanks

Pete Kontakos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinglouis2005 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:GALLERY, which generally discourages adding multiple images to a "Gallery" section in an article. Since you say that you have taken other underwater photos or videos in the Florida Keys, there are a number of articles about reefs that do not yet have images at Category:Coral reefs of the Florida Keys. Oh, and please sign your comments on user and article talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. If you have more questions, I will try to help you. - Donald Albury

23:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

(referring to this message) Information icon Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fernandina Beach, Florida, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please provide a citation to where you found the population figure. Donald Albury 01:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamvr (talk • contribs)

Why wouldn't a person be wanting to know who "Brandon" is? I didn't know at first.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know how to cite this, since it doesn't affect the link, but if you check [2] and select "Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area" next to "Geographies" instead of "place" you can see the map of the Gainesville metropolitan area. If you then change "year" you can tell when each county was added. I must have looked at it wrong when I accidentally put that Columbia county was added and removed. Thanks for correcting my error. Bill Williams 01:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams:, I had this vague memory of Columbia County being added to the Gainesville metro area, but couldn't remember details. In fact, I was thinking I had added that bit about Columbia County to the article in the past, but I don't see that in the edit history. What I was remembering is this, the Gainesville-Lake City Combined Statistical Area, created in 2012. The CSA is in the 2018 OMB Bulletin, so it seems to still be around. It is mentioned in the Columbia County articles. I'm too tired tonight to worry about where else it should be mentioned. - Donald Albury 02:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, I must have clicked on the CSA option on the Census site, and mistakenly thought it was the MSA. Bill Williams 02:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The edit made by this IP Address is from a shared address, and I happened to have been on Wikipedia the moment you sent a message.

I'm unsure of who made this edit, but I would like to let you know that I appreciate you having undone it and I apologize on behalf of the other user for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.45.22 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Donald, just a little note to let you know I've expanded the block of

) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Thank you! I keep forgetting to deal with IPv6. - Donald Albury 21:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sarah passed away in May. But she lives on in all of us. El_C 22:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! It's Dak Kirk. Thanks much for the message about my edits to the Sahara Desert article. The section that was edited already contained an internal link to "Negroid," which explains that the term is an outdated racial grouping that is not scientific. But you're right, the Sahara article should include citations as well. I added those citations and reapplied the edits. To try and clarify the issue, the article previously said "The specimen was determined to be that of a 30-month-old child of uncertain sex, who possessed Negroid features." However, scientists have shown that no one can say with any scientific authority that a human's features are "negroid," as such terminology is not based on actual science (but racist imaginings). It seems like an oversight to note the archeological team's claims but not note that the claims were based on a racist classification system that's not science. Anyways, hopefully my edits make things a little clearer. I'm sure they could be further improved. Best :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dax Kirk (talk • contribs) 06:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for the tip on how to edit talk pages properly, was really struggling to figure that out! SamLangClem (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to let you know that your archive listing is 4 pages behind — 10 listed as current instead of 14 (had to go to the history to find). HTH. El_C 15:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard
  discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent
  .

---

The edit I made to Cancun is literally already in the article in the etymology sections! I didn't think a citation would be necessary since it was already in there 24.69.133.124 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Donald. Thank you for your courage to run in this year's ACE. This kind of scrutiny can sometimes be as challenging as an RfA - if not worse. Some candidates ran on a platform for changes in Arbcom. Now comes the cliff-hanger of waiting for the results. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A

. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee

• Congratulations, Donald. I had to do some tactical voting but this is a result I was hoping for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you for your support. - Donald Albury 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

December songs

Congrats to the election! On Beethoven's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm listening to Beethoven's 5th right now. - Donald Albury 20:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

thank you ;) - today memories of singing Monteverdi, Handel, Rossini - a triple nod to Brian --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't sing in public. Tone deafness runs in my family. - Donald Albury 16:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Donald. As is always the case with Arbcom and bureaucracy, there's a mountain of paperwork to do. Any chance you can follow the steps in the box above? Cheers Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In the Escambia High School article, you reverted my edit.

I had changed the superintendent to Timothy Smith and put in a reference: https://ecsd-fl.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1516954971058&vdid=i31b1rtxthlz

What do you mean "Doesn't belong in a school article"? If you mean the name of the superintendent doesn't belong, fine, delete it. I won't argue that. But don't change it back to the wrong name.

Malcolm Thomas is no longer superintendent. Timothy Smith is.

Here are some other references:

https://www.newsradio923.com/podcast/09-02-20-dr-timothy-smith-newly-appointed-superintendent-of-escambia-county-schools/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/civiccon-live-dr-timothy-smith-discusses-his-focus-for-escambia-county-schools/ar-BB1d7tb0 https://www.wuwf.org/local-news/2021-01-11/malcolm-thomas-on-the-future-of-escambia-schools Kendrafun (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kendrafun: Superintendants should be named in the article about the district. School articles should include links to the article about the district, but the infobox should otherwise only be for information about the school. If you have not seen it, I recommend reading over the recommendations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. - Donald Albury 02:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their

by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2022:

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Cabayi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Donald Albury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enterprisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2021:

• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SoWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2021 at their own request:

  CheckUser: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy

  Oversight: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the
  functionaries' mailing list
• David Fuchs will be unsubscribed from the
  arbitration clerks' mailing list
  at his request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Maxim_(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2022 Arbitration Committee

A token of thanks Hi Donald Albury! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)