USER TALK:Snow Rise

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least ten years.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


    This user is busy with off-project obligations and, with apologies, may not respond to all inquiries quickly at this time.    






Notice: I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles.






Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello! Obviously, I essentially never edit another user's comment, but, in case I was too presumptuous, I wanted to give you a heads up that I had edited yours (diff). In my browser, at least, your previous comment wasn't rendering correctly: The collapse box extended well beyond the right border of the page (as in, I had to scroll right in order to see the end of it), and the first paragraph was not indented—rather, it rendered "::Looking first ...", while the subsequent paragraphs were properly indented. Here's an image of what it looked like. I'm using Safari web browser on a laptop, which might be niche enough that, if you weren't seeing those problems, it might be worth reverting me, but I suspect the issue occurs across browsers—that starting a template with indentation (::) doesn't work, for some reason. Apologies if I'm mistaken!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jerome, that's fine--no worries. The indentation was formatting fine for me, and I hope for the majority of users, and I used that particular combination of markup and template parameters because it is the only way (that I know of anyway) to use the template and still get the bullet to render outside the collapse box and line up with the other sequential points. But I don't object to your good faith effort to fix what appeared to be a problem on your end. If/when I come back for the follow up discussion, I'll see if I can figure out a way to make the template render as I intended for Safari as well (heads up for a new(ish) user: in my experience, it does tend to be the most finicky of browsers for working with en.Wiipedia, just in case you have multiple browsers and want to experiment). Or probably I won't bother, actually: its not a big deal either way. I just get a little anal sometimes about justification of elements looking just right, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good in these little situations. :) SnowRise let's rap 18:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, I'm sorry! I so rarely have display issues with Safari that I didn't bother to download another browser and check; and, yeah, I'm unfortunately a bit too new to the project (or at least, to talk pages) to have noticed many formatting issues—although I had noticed the collapse template issue when I tried to use like you did, but I just assumed what I said above—that I couldn't start a parameter with an indent ... so who knows how often I've run into issues and made wrong assumptions. I'll absolutely look into switching! I appreciate the grace.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all Jerome: our markup can be...quirky to say the least. It's all a matter of building up a mental repertoire of workarounds for specific situations. And the changes were trivial in any event. I appreciate the head's up, and for what it's worth, I'm happy to help if you have questions about formatting in the future--I'm far from the most knowledgeable community member in that respect, but I've built up a serviceable base of knowledge and collection of tricks, and such well-mannered inquiries are always welcome here. :) SnowRise let's rap 03:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Frank Disciple, I wanted to wish you luck on the Bar Exam. UBE? In any event, I think you are making the right decision by compartmentalizing yourself away from the project for now: now is not the time for dividing your focus, and Wikipedia will be here in a year or so when you are (I hope) licensed and established in your first post-embarment position. That said, I also will echo what others have said to you: it would be a shame if you did not return at some point. While you can be a little gung-ho at times, I think you show great potential as an editor and member of the community. You seek to understand and work within our consensus framework (not unsurprising for a future attorney), you approach your fellow community members with civility and decorum, and you are not too stubborn or proud to admit when you have erred or to consider that you might want to consider a new perspective or approach. Notwithstanding your current frustrations with the project, and your need for the present time to place your energies elsewhere in any event, these are qualities which often define those who have the capacity to be with us for the long haul, and are traits we could always stand to see more of. In the meantime, I wish you luck against the Bar beast and in everything else the coming months have in store for you. :) SnowRise let's rap 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Just wanted to commend you...

The Original Barnstar
...for your extraordinary patience and lucid new-editor pedagogy at Talk:Scientific racism. That's the kind of work that truly builds an encyclopedia. You are seen and appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, that's so thoughtful, GR--thank you! I guess I just thought if he was going to be forced off of his first attempts at process, he ought to get a robust (if also blunt) answer to his questions, and so long as no one was taking exception to a few walls of text, I was happy to do it. Anyway, putting aside the editorial considerations and talking purely abstractly about his OR, I certainly don't agree with every element of what he proposed (or even the ultimate thesis), but he did bring some details about Malthus to bear which I was previously unfamiliar with, and people who open new light on old subjects go into my brain as "can't be that bad" by default. :D Speaking of the noggin', now I just have to access the right memory circuits to think of some proper examples to respond to his request for good discussions that engaged with the meaning of synth. I'm sure I've seen 400 if I've seen one in my tenure here, but I'll be damned if I can think of a particularly emblematic, instructive example. Maybe after some sleep later tonight! Anywhoo...thanks again: really very kind of you to take the time. :) SnowRise let's rap 10:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is it that time again? Thank you, Gerda! :) Always good to see you: I hope you've been well? SnowRise let's rap 10:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRM discussion at ANI

Hi, I'm taking this discussion here to get it out of the way of the main noticeboard.

The primary driver for closing the thread is that it was starting to get out of hand, with several sections already hatted, and uncivil comments such as "seeing as how the TRM Booster Club is out in full force" led me to conclude the best thing for the community was to try and close the discussion gracefully, so everyone could focus on something else.

I didn't do a specific head count, but looked at the arguments presented, and the most persuasive one of all came from Serial Number 51429, explaining that a lot of the time, when discussions like ITN get out of hand it can be six of one, and half a dozen of the other. When combined with TRM removing the content that generated the original complaint, after Amakuru (who also opposed the ITN ban) made a constructive suggestion, it appeared to me that a ban was not the right answer at this time.

For what it's worth, I have also previously complained about TRM at ANI.

I hope that all makes sense, and if you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it appeared to me that a ban was not the right answer at this time."
With all respect due to you by your clearly goodfaith motivation to seek a positive outcome here, it is simply not the closer's (even an admin closer's) place in a
WP:CBAN discussion to supplant the community's prerogative with their own hand-picked optimal solution. The community clearly assessed a great deal of both the present context and the historical concerns with this contributor and unambiguously endorsed a path forward. I very much understand where you are coming from in saying you wanted to stem any further disruption from a heated debate, but that is simply insufficient reasoning to subvert such a clear consensus. I'm not going to comment further there if no one else feels powerfully enough about the matter to speak up, but I have to tell you bluntly, while I applaud the sentiment that drove you here, this was the wrong call and an abuse of process, and I think you might end up eating crow over it. SnowRise let's rap 11:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If another user objects to the closure (whether here, on my talk page, at ANI or another venue where I can be pinged into it), I will re-open the discussion. If no other user does, you may to have accept you have a minority view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me: thanks for your time, it is genuinely appreciated. SnowRise let's rap 11:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following
    community consensus
    will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

  • Following
    arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales
    .

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility of list styling

Hi Snow Rise. With regard to your post at the Roxy the dog ANI, I wanted to quickly bring to your attention the guidance at

MOS:INDENTMIX. It's purely for future reference – I've already taken the liberty of tweaking your post (along with those of several other users) to bring them into compliance so there's nothing to worry about. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 14:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, The Gnome, if I'm honest, the most relevant thing I can think of in relation to the number of Johnson's children is the fact that we are likely to end up with the most frizzy-haired political dynasty in history. Seriously, I can't shake a vision of generations of MPs making every question time look like an episode of Fraggle Rock. SnowRise let's rap 10:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Am I in the right place here, or is this a mistaken
ping?) Greetings. Mendelian biology will probably take care of the fuzzy-hair bit; past record indicates that parliamentary family-dynasties fare no better than royal ones. And, in the final charge, our better angels shall prevail. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A genuine ping, Gnome: just wanted to interject some levity into the proceedings, to keep everything in perspective! SnowRise let's rap 00:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Hello. I think it's time to complete the straw poll. It's been about nine days since it opened. And the last Ivote was about seven days ago (maybe six?). So, what do you think? You're welcome to

emcee the occasion if you wish. Will this be black tie? (:>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey Steve: heheh, my formal wear is at the cleaners, but I can be relied upon to bring the expected pomposity, I suppose. I'm too involved by this point to formally close, of course, but I do have an !vote that I think might push the formal consensus into one column for the moment. I actually composed this several days ago, but it was far, far too long to enter into a survey, and I haven't found time to make it more workable. However, for the moment I will share my unfiltered thoughts with you:
  • Partial merge and temporary redirect. I've really gone back and forth on this, being as there are compelling arguments on either side of the independent article issue. And I don't know that this !vote is going to do much to shift consensus here, positioned as it is somewhere so close to the middle that you might consider it effectively neutral in terms of formulating a consensus from all the perspectives presented here. Nevertheless, this is what I think the ideal solution (and arguably the only feasible one, longterm) might be.
First off, while the discussion has thankfully been nuanced on the whole, there are some extreme versions of the core arguments that have been advanced at points above (and at the ANI that brought some of us in as additional voices) that I think are worth repudiating. For example, the suggestion that psuedo-scientific topics should not receive their own articles whenever those topics have not benefited from discussion in serious scientific scholarship is not just contrary to community consensus as recorded in the core policies of relevance here
WP:FRINGE
, it is also just a very poorly-considered notion. Much of the world of pseudoscience or junk science does not benefit from the scrutiny of experts from the over-arching fields these faux concepts camouflage themselves within, because those experts have limited time and resources, and frankly, better things to do with their time. That does not, however, mean that the topics in question are transmuted into something to which out base notability and inclusion criteria do not apply.
So I would like to be clear that I think there clearly is a legitimate potential article here. There's sufficient sourcing (I think that has been demonstrated even to the satisfaction of most of the initial skeptics at this point) and no fundamental reason why we can't discuss the subject while still contextualizing it for the reader as something that comes from outside scholarship or empirical research. That said, notability and theoretical feasability are not the end of the analysis on whether we have a standalone article on a topic: there is also the matter of
WP:PAGEDECIDE
considerations. I don't think any of the editors who have supported a redirect here have expressly framed their objections in those terms, but I think it is helpful to do so, so I will:
To be quite blunt, the article as originally written was (not just because of its reliance on primary sourcing, but because of the choices made in its construction) completely unacceptable as neutral encyclopedic content. Looking through the edit history over the years, it is pretty clear that most of the authors that produced this content had a hagiographic impression of Leary and the work and thus completely fail to note obvious context, such as the fact that this "model" is more a product of mystcicism that apes scientific terminology than of anything remotely based in actual scientific research or legitimately debated frameworks.
To focus for the moment on just one of many serious shortfallings in presenting this topic neutrally, the article has long buried the lead with regard to where the concepts originate: that is to say, with a man coming down from a decade of heavy psychedelic usage, held in solitary confinement. That's about as far as you can get from anything that can be legitimately called valid scientific process, and yet looking through the edit history, most versions of the article, including the very recent ones, either did not include that vital information, or mentioned it briefly in passing towards the end of the article. That's context that should be foregrounded early: almost certainly it belongs in the lead, but it at least needs to be introduced well before a thorough description of the content of the theory in its own terms.
And that's just part of the problem with how the subject is contextualized. Throughout both historical and recent versions of the article, you can find all manner of omissions and misrepresentations that frame the Eight Circuit Model as conventional science that empirically interweaves legitimate research from psychology, neuroscience, theoretical physics, biochemistry, mathematics, and quantum mechanics (to name just a fraction of the disciplines name-checked in various versions of the article). And that's just not what this model is. It's unambigously (and I'm talking here in terms of both common sense and the sourcing) new age mysticism that occasionally appropriates isolated terminology from those fields, but has nothing to do with serious research (or serious academics) within those fields.
Let me be clear that these issues definitely did not start with Randy. In fact, from the looks of things, he made a significant number of changes to improve the article's readability. Nevertheless, it does seem that he does believe the model is legitimate science, and he has argued for the preservation of a version of the article that happens to sell that notion hard. It is this problem which I believe the other editors here object to and which has led to what is, in my opinion, an over-focusing on the use of primary sourcing (which use is a concern, but one that wouldn't be as pronounced if not for the way in which those primary sources are being utilized).
So what we are left with at the end here is a situation where the theoretical best approach under policy and the practical best way forward are somewhat in tension. Yes, this is a valid and
WP:Notable
topic under our policies. But we don't have anyone here with both the impetus and perspective to actually write the policy-consistent, neutral version of the article we would need. And in fact, the amount of pushback against clearly significant concerns voiced about the historical approach to the topic just puts the final nail in the coffin for now. Yes, there should be an article on the Eight Circuit Model, but in terms of our obligation to provide neutral coverage, having no article is clearly better than presenting the article we had, or anything remotely like it. I'd ideally like to see a middle ground solution, but the gap between the two sides and the overall intractability involved in the recent discussions make me feel I have to choose the less problematic option, which for the moment is to redirect the namespace until a reasonable compromise version of the article's content is agreed to.
So that is basically where I land on the issues, but I will need to find a way to render that down. Or I suppose I could just do a quick paragraph, but there's plenty in there that ideally I think both "sides" could benefit from hearing so there's a better chance that this works towards a stable consensus rather than just kicking the can down the road. If you're eager to get this done in the next day, I'll go with the concise option though, because I don't know that I have the remaining time today to pare this monster post down to something talk page acceptable. SnowRise let's rap 23:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your ivote and above response. I will request a closer after about seven days from now if no one else ivotes. Otherwise, I will request a closer seven days after the last ivote. I also prefer an uninvolved closer now that you bring it up. I personally don't want the headache of someone protesting my close because I was a participant. And if that happens I would be compelled to request an uninvolved closer anyway. So, why not save a step. Right?
Regards, ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, precisely my thinking as well. Coming into the discussion late as I did, and by virtue of the ANI, I may have been somewhat less involved than others, but in the time I was there, I staked out enough opinions on the editorial issues, that I was definitely at least partially involved by the end of the straw poll. And sometimes you can still make a close in those circumstances if the dispute has been a light and all around collaborative one, but it's not like all parties are taking a light touch to this particular discussion, so I wouldn't expect a laissez-faire response if I tried to formally summarize the consensus--so, as you said, hitting the nail on the head, why add another step if it's almost certain someone will invoke their interest to procedurally object anyway?
That said, I hope my !vote does at least push us into firm consensus territory. With at least six days left before you ask for a closer, I shouldn't have difficulty finding time to render the above into two or three paragraphs to add some extra emphasis. *desperately looks around for some wood to knock on*. I am kind of curious to see if fiveby will take a firm stance one way or the other by then, since they were the one other middle-ground/wait-and-see/swing !vote. That could make the difference to a closer if my final perspective isn't enough to tip it into firm consensus. SnowRise let's rap 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVAS
, but you know, there's been an immense amount of patience and willingness to explore compromise territory there while still meeting the requirements of basic content guidelines and it has resulted in no real progress towards an acceptable version of the article. I can now see why this ended up at ANI in the first place, and I would have been less equanimious in my responses to the original thread there if I had known how much more protracted this would get.
Anyway, long story short, I do think a more than reasonable amount of time and energy has been expended in pursuing alternatives (mostly by me, I know: the rest of you saw the writing on the wall much sooner!), and it's time to just adopt the approach agreed to by the clear consensus, much though I view it as a non-deal result. Sometimes on this project it's just a matter of adopting the lesser of two poor options. Whether in a week or sooner, feel free to let me know when you request the close, because I don't have plans to return to the talk page for further discussion otherwise, since it really isn't going anywhere. SnowRise let's rap 00:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, technically speaking, I don't think you even need a formal close: it wasn't an RfC (and not even those require a formal close in cases of obvious consensus), and the result is pretty straight-forward, so you could easily just apply the redirect. Still, a formal close might be the best approach to avoid further disruption and unceasing litigation over the result. I'll leave it to you to decide the best step forward and will offer my support if you get pushback, but otherwise, I'll leave it to those of you had less qualms about shutting down the fringe content in the first place: having stepped in to the discussion in the hope of threading the needle and finding a compromise solution, I'm stepping out since I'm not seeing enough movement from one side to make that possible. A shame, really: there certainly is an encyclopedic topic here: a shame we couldn't reflect it, short of presenting it like empirical research, as it clearly isn't. SnowRise let's rap 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow,
I appreciate your support. And I'm sorry there has been so much trouble for you. I will try to come up with the best way to move forward. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, despite the way it has panned out, no trouble Steve: I would rather make the effort to find a solution everyone could live with and have it fail than not try at all. Ironically, the person I am most concerned for from here is Randy: just as that ANI thread was about to be archived for lack of activity, and weeks after anyone was recommending action against him, it has been revived. I'm really hoping it doesn't lead to more tussle and trouble for him, because his decision to retire from the matter should have been respected. I can't see how it is likely to blow that way, but with discussion revived there now, who knows. As to the talk page, I'm going to do my best not to comment immediately. With others engaged, and me no longer standing in the way as a psuedo-partition, consensus should be clear. I'll make my position known if there are any further inflection points in the discussion or if Raven makes the ill-advised decision to push matters further at ANI, but otherwise I think I've said all I can say on the editorial matter. You can always ping me if absolutely necessary, but otherwise I think I'm tapped. Best of luck to you guys in resolving it with a minimum of additional disruption. SnowRise let's rap 03:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE
, and that's to the better of the longterm stability and appropriateness of the article anyway, so I hope you will not be nonplussed.
That said, as I just made clear in the ANI, there's still a lot of disruption going on at this juncture that is keeping good faith from prevailing, even with this interjection of opinions from experienced editors. I've just told Raven under no uncertain terms that I'm considering proposing a page ban against them myself, nevermind that we are on the same side of the core question of whether an article should exist there. The bludgeoning has got to stop. That said, JoelleJay could stand to stop empowering them with constant responses. Those two are really on extreme diametric corners on relevant policy issues, with neither comporting particularly strongly with community or local consensus: Joelle seems to want to torch down anything that remotely touches on FRINGE, and Raven is convinced the policy doesn't even apply to the article--neither of which is a tenable position in my opinion. I welcome the range of ideas, but it's no surprise they don't see eye to eye, and the protracted hyper-detailed sparring on every last syllable of
WP:FRINGE
has got to stop. Raven's issues go beyond that, no doubt, but Joelle's enabling is not helping, imo. I'm going to be unable to be super involved for a few days, so hopefully my comments at the ANI are sufficient to convince them to retire to their corners for a bit.
Anyway, I'm rambling now. Point is: sorry if I protracted the close further. but as I said on the talk page, I'm not going to belabor this attempt at sandboxing. If it's not going anywhere in a couple of days, I'm done trying to mediate a compromise, I'm just going to repeat my stance on what should and should not be in that article, and I'm done. SnowRise let's rap 17:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You may have inadvertently led us to the precipice at the end of the world as your combined use of bold and underline could conceivably be responsible for driving a copy editor somewhere on the planet to violate the two drink rule of the inebriati in anger. Joking, my friend; I appreciate your levelheaded comment in that discussion. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: is it just me or do the Mitchell and Webb crew very much seem to embrace a bit of the method acting approach for any scene involving booze? The performances in those bits always seem just a little too too good, especially considering their usual sincerity-adjacent tone in their sketches. I'm not wrong, right? [1], [2], [3], [4]. Anyhow, thanks Vir, I'm glad if I've been any help in resolving the matter: for what it's worth, your coming over from the Leary article and quickly constructing that article on the principle work itself was the real turning point in breaking up the loggerhead on what to do with the content. Hopefully the consensus is strong enough to resolve the matter for now, and bring everyone to the table with more of a mind towards flexibility and a reasonable compromise version when it does come time to resurrect the article. If so, I hope you're involved--not just because you've been helpful in navigating the policy issues, but because I meant what I said before: I really was impressed by the quality of your prose and editing in putting that article together so well in such a short span.
By the way, as coincidence would have it, just before I ran into you at the 8CMC article, I happened to peek in at Talk:Carnism. It seems there are still some occasional disputes as to tone there, and I was thinking about commenting about how to thread the needle (to make the concepts a little more accessible without changing the meaning, so that maybe the misconceptions about the ideas contained therein are a little less likely to happen), when I can find the time. As I recall, you were somewhat involved with assisting FourViolas in refining her original draft of that article, weren't you? Would you care to receive a ping if a discussion gets underway there? Anyhow, please stop by my talk page any time; you can bring a Peep Show clip next time. ;) SnowRise let's rap 07:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sheesh, just double-checked and realized you were already participating as of the last discussion. So much for my middle-term memory these days--you'd think I was a charter member of the Knights Tippler! :D SnowRise let's rap 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks, ever so much. I was behind Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, which is carnism-adjacent (I'm using that ironically). The late, great SlimVirgin was the one who helped FourViolas with carnism, IIRC. I have things to say about the Leary discussion, but I'm working on a few other things at the moment. Your calm demeanor may be needed elsewhere, so I may be calling on you again soon. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, another coincidence: I've been missing Sarah (and FlyerReborn) every time I get sucked into the orbit of a reproductive health topic of late. I actually went looking to see if Halo was still on the project the other day to tell him that I still see an old comment on a talk page from his sister every once in a while that makes me realize all over again what a loss it was to our work in certain difficult areas when she passed--and to see if there was anything I could help him with. Unfortunately, it seems he didn't have the willingness to persist here long after he informed us of what had transpired... I tell you, not to be all doom and gloom, but the ranks of stalwart, reliable, straight-shooting editors in MEDRS areas are feeling a wee bit thin, relative to the work, of late... So, on that note, and in response to your comment, please, whenever I can be of help in any area, don't hesitate to reach out. :) SnowRise let's rap 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Snow Rise,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The

WT:NPPR
when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at

AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed
, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at

draftspace is optional
, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own

WP:ARTIST
4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Snow Rise,

The

New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed
. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing AQI readings

Hi there. Just a reminder if you can find some resources. Thank you. 68.174.155.22 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, OP: I saw this message yesterday, but I had/have so many balls in the air off project (and a few here too, for that matter, albeit of a much smaller variety), that I totally spaced. Hang tight--will compile it as soon as I can: some of it comes off of other devices, so some manual entry involved. :) SnowRise let's rap 02:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IP, are you still there? Let's have a talk about where you're at and what you most want to understand about the AQI sampling and/or what data you want access to quickly. For a starter, these links may be of use to you: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. However, note that regional resources are in some respects actually where the most fine-grain resources and robust reporting data are to be found, so if you do not mind disclosing your locality I'll probably be able to direct you to a monitor reporting schema that is more precise and frequently updated, with larger historical data sets. SnowRise let's rap 14:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Talk page banning query

Hi Snow Rise. Thanks again for your impartial and sound comments at ANI; I'm taking the feedback on board and I hope the other editor is too. You asked if I was aware that I have it in my discretion to ban people from commenting on my talk page? Well, no, I was not aware of that. I'd really like the ANI discussion to be closed, so rather than asking you a question there and keeping the thread open, I thought I'd do it here instead. Just to clarify, are you just referring to

WP:GOAWAY? As in telling someone to stop commenting and then hoping they respect your wishes? Or did you mean I could manually revert every unwanted addition if I wanted to? Or is there an actual way to ban people? Thanks in advance. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, hi again
WP:REMOVE. Thanks for being open to feedback in the discussion: I hope the next time we cross paths on the project is under less stressful circumstances for you! SnowRise let's rap 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Got to get off my hands on that

Hey Thebiguglyalien: we really do need to finally get around to that independent Advicepages policy page proposal, don't we? Let's make a plan to at least start detailed discussion and drafting by the end of August? SnowRise let's rap 21:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if a better local vs community consensus distinction was made in policy. I suspect writing the draft is the easy part though. The difficulty in clarifying consensus (which this is supposed to solve) will likely make it equally difficult to get everyone to agree on a clarification. I still have one possible approach in my sandbox history, but I'm not particularly attached to it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a very rough crack at putting forward how I see the issue, having watched the original drama that lead to to rule and (because I do more RfC than any other single thing here, seen a thousand and one discussions since on WikiProject talk pages where it seems that most participant editors were unaware of the principle. That's going to be the major, major hurdle. It's unambigously policy, broader community consensus and some arbcom rulings both. But it is so poorly understood that many people here will perceive that it is a novel proposal, not a proposal to move the policy language to it's own space, if we don't frame this just perfectly. There's actually a danger here that this could provoke a reaction from major WikiProject participants who haven't thought the issues with conflicting standards between WikiProjects (and all of this taking place outside of normal CONLEVEL procedures) all of the way through, such that they realize that this project literally can't function without the AdvicePages principle. Hence why ArbCom codified it and it got enshrined as policy (but in a slightly weird place).
So here's the status quo right now. The majority of these RfCs, I am the first person to point this out (I can actually count one hand I think the number of times someone else got to it first), but when you do point it out, people get it and accept it pretty much without exception, because the issue and wording of AdvicePages is pretty clear. It helps that I always add "Look, if every major contributor to the relevant article(s) is contributing to this discussion and agrees to abide by the consensus, then you might well be able to enforce this. But the point is, you can't just point back to this discussion if someone outside this clique does raise the issue on an individual talk page: policy is clear that in every such occasion, you must have a
WP:CONLEVEL
works. If you can live with that potential wasted energy if even one outside editor decides to rain on the walled garden parade, go at it. Just be careful going any further to try to enforce that consensus directly, as that will get you blocked."
This might make a lot of sense to even the majority of committed WikiProject adherents, but you can bet dollars to doughnuts some are going to rebel hard and insist this is some massive new overreach of novel policy. Mark my words. Our job is to manage that number with as clear, rational and comprehensive a guideline as we can, plus a compelling and equally thorough proposal prompt/argument advocating for the move. We have to make this airtight or we might create a cascade effects of the most reactionary walled garden WikiProject members creating a hardened narrative around it and newer editors following their leads, actually making things significantly worse than the present (when at least people accept the existing policy when you link them to it. It is essential we demonstrate what inevitably happens without this principle, and what in fact did happen in the past before ArbCom and the community at large stepped in. Or else it's better that we don't try at all, if you follow my meaning.
I'll be referencing your draft when I do my own btw, because you have a slightly different but convergent way of describing this issue that is helpful. SnowRise let's rap 22:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Re: Nerd fight

Now if you'll all excuse me, I think I'll watch an episode of TNG before I turn in

Just started getting into Star Trek: Strange New Worlds which is quite good. Of course, a lot of the minor but important backstory occurs in Discovery, so it helps to watch all four seasons of that first. It's kind of sad that DSC got hammered by fans, but it's not as bad as people think it is. My only huge criticism was the spore drive, which is just absurd, but a token homage to Paul Stamets. I got a chance to talk to the writers before they launched it and I know they care, but the spore drive concept should never have made it into the show, IMO. Other than that, I enjoyed DSC and I'm loving SNW in a big way. The made a huge effort to return to the roots of Trek with this one. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've watched the first two series of Discovery and most of the first series of Strange New Worlds. My impressions have been mixed:
  • I remained cautiously optimistic about Discovery through the first series, though there were moments that I and a friend would watch it that we found ourselves "MST3K-ing" it, if you follow my meaning. The second series, my interest started to slip: I found it all terribly predictable on the whole, down to almost every plot "twist" in the back-half of the series being fully telegraphed in the first few episodes, for anyone familiar with the tropes of contemporary TV writing in the area of speculative fiction. The pacing was also just a huge issue for me: every single episode needed to have everything happening all at once at...well, warp speed, to use the obvious turn of phrase! For me, the highlight was definitely the appearance of the hitherto unmentioned army of armed EVE drones that popped out of Discovery to defend it in the climactic battle. Though it was mostly a feeling of "Sure, this might as well happen, why not!", that I'm not sure reflects well on the second series..
I did think that the second series ended in a very interesting place, and I was curious to see where they might run with a largely unexplored area for the franchise (the post 24th-century galaxy). But I only made it through the first episode. The writing, acting, and direction choices in that episode were so off-putting I put the show down and have yet to come back to it. It was as if the creative team were trying to recreate the frenetic energy of
Run Lola, Run
, fused with Star Trek, and not really doing much credit to either part of the recipe. And the general tedious effort to tie it together with the typical "quipiness" of action sci-fi shows in the post-MCU industry wasn't doing it any favours either. I also didn't get the sense that I was going to very much like what they had decided to do with the narrative of the future Federation. But admittedly, I never checked up on what was said about the show thereafter, and could probably stand to give it another try.
  • Strange New Worlds might the closest thing to the thematics of the earliest Star Trek shows among the newest raft of shows, which I generally consider a good thing. For my money, everything from Voyager to the TNG movies to the Abrams movies to the recent sequence of contemporary shows have all failed to capture the humanistic element that made TNG and DS9 (and to a large extent, TOS before them / to a lesser extent, Enterprise after) so compelling in that somewhat obvious but still subtly crafted morality play kind of way. Strange New Worlds brings some of that magic back into the foreground, though I will say it still has rather a heavy reliance that is typical of all the new Star Trek shows on trying to appear cleverdick at every opportunity, relying heavily on action, and trying to force a cinematic tone into every episode. The characters are also a little broadly drawn for my money, and the constantly high stakes drama often contrived.
  • And the less said about Picard the better: maybe the single biggest waste of potential of any follow-up project/product in the entire genre. And not just the critically-panned second series (which I only watched small excerpts of) or the the third series with it's mixed reception. I found even the first (and realtively well received) season to be so poorly written, meandering, and relentlessly paint-by-numbers (and yet somehow also filled with inexplicable creative choices) that it was basically unwatchable. And yet watch I did, as perhaps the most well-crafted character of 20th century television was leveraged into a campy deconstruction made to shuffle through an improbable and bewildering narrative almost completely devoid of charm or meaning or any recognizable connection to what came before. What a terrible shame.
So that's my impression of where the franchise is right now. SNW has some potential, but I'm not convinced, with the current creative stewardship of the franchise as a whole, that it won't fall into relying on it's more superficial elements more than the more compelling explorative fare that makes for truly good science fiction. I think the people in charge are largely blind to what made the earliest shows in the series what they were (or else they are actively looking to do something that moves expressly in a different direction, as is their prerogative, at the end of the day). TOS, TNG, and DS9 all owe more to the great writers of the theatre than they do to Star Wars and the successful sci-fi movie action blockbusters. Episodes of those shows were tele-plays in the deepest sense. Their magic was in their dialogue and the graceful exploration of human universals. To the extent they had predecessors in television, it was the sci-fi anthologies, not the action adventures.
Eh, I'm ranting. I guess I just don't want to be seen as aging reactionary dismissing the new stuff merely by virtue of it not being perfect and completely aligned with my expectations. I've given it all a chance. I really want it to work, and I'm prepared to take the bad with the good when it does (as with Enterprise, parts of the Abrams movies, and occasional good or even great episodes of 'Discovery and SNW). The product just isn't that good on the whole in my opinion. The writing is often clumsy and tin-earred, it has the fingerprints of studio notes all over it, often as not, it can be very obvious and cumbersome in its pandering (speaking to social issues with metaphor is one thing the franchise has always done, and often done well, but this is a different animal in my opinion, being more about aping the values of it's audience than in posing challenging questions to expand the viewer's horizons), and often becomes a confusing pastiche of priorities: a product with an identity crisis formed from trying to pull the story in too many different directions at once.
All of which is to say...I think I'll stick with the classics. I'll probably check in with Pike and crew now and again, and I should probably give the second half of Discovery a fair shake at some point. But my expectations are exceedingly low after all that has come between "What We Left Behind" and now. SnowRise let's rap 01:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old Trek vs. New Trek
I think that most people are inflexible, unyielding, and resistant to change. Familiarity breeds habits which become preferences and then solidify into unwavering opinions. It happens. It takes some active effort to resist it, to fight against it, and to embrace the new, the different, the nontraditional, and ultimately, the profane. Every fiber in our being tells us not to, to stay away, to move towards what is comfortable, agreeable, and has the feeling of home. So where am I going with this? Let me dig deeper for an apt analogy. Just as we have come to accept that it isn't about nature versus nurture, but rather nature and nurture, so too is it not about old Trek versus new Trek but rather old Trek and new Trek. I think you've momentarily forgotten this because old Trek holds so many good memories. Who can forget the chills going up your spine in 1989 when "The Measure of a Man" first aired? Or a decade later when DS9 took Trek where it never went before in 1998 with "In the Pale Moonlight"? I can still remember the electricity in the room. And yet, and yet, you would have us leave it there! No, my friend, no, Voyager took us to another place, as much as you deny it. "Year of Hell" gave us all the time travel plot we wanted. Kurtwood Smith's performance as the mad scientist was second to none. "Living Witness" is a tour de force performance by Robert Picardo that is essential must-see Trek. And "Muse" was a fun, light-hearted homage to the theatrical influences you discuss above. "Author, Author" left many of us with tears in 2001. And it is only one of many incredible episodes (and arcs) in the series. I can say the same thing about Enterprise and Discovery, but you will no doubt give me the same, Aristophanic complaint! Please, do not cut yourself off from the new and the different. The same complaints you wage against new Trek can be made against the old; please realize this. You say that new Trek is "more about aping the values of it's audience than in posing challenging questions to expand the viewer's horizons", but be honest, is that really true? Of course not! Old Trek did the very thing! Old and new Trek are merely reflections of their audience, each unique to their time and place at a particular point in time. DSC is the version Gen X came up with, for better or for worse. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you see, this is just the kind of reductivist argument I was hoping to head off. It's become the very popular and easy thing to do these days to simply imply "Oh, well every generation thinks that about what comes next." as a means of deflecting criticism away from contemporary works. But here's the complicated truth: not all writer's rooms are created equal, and some of this stuff may very well just be crap. I have no sacred cows when it comes to what is essentially a type of brand loyalty when one assumes as franchise can do no wrong and can't decline in quality.
Or better put, vary in quality. Because neither is this a simple "old vs. new" situation. TOS was inspirational for it's time, but it was TNG that brought depth to the formula, and DS9 that broke the mold on serialized storytelling of speculative fiction. And Voyager is closer to the "old guard" shows than the new, in terms of timing and tone. But it is a truly terrible show my friend: I'm sorry, it just is. Tin-earred dialogue, nonsensical concepts, predicated in inane technobabble to a degree to make the even the series 1 TNG writers blush, flat characters, flatter acting, no consistency, or continuity or meaning to anything. The concept is brilliant: it really had potential to push the line that DS9 started with nudging the franchise towards some realism and moral depth. That show should have been about a desperate flight through one hostile territory after another, resources dwindling, ethical grey areas toyed with and moral event horizons occasionally crossed, all while two crews that are pragmatically and philosophically opposed to the point where trust is difficult and even mutual ability to go on together in doubt, must contend with one-another.
What did we get instead? A warmed over rehash of TNG, but with one-tenth the talent evident in the writing. Infinite resources all the time, except when something has to be arbitrarily suddenly scarce in order to be the inciting incident for a planet- or space-anomaly-of-the-week plot. And the status quo ante button hit at the end of every episode for the most part. I remember the "Year of Hell" as being not much better than the rest, but at least it hinted at what that show could have been in the hands of less hackey writers. Truly almost unwatchable, but watch 95% of it I did watch, because I still had hints of free time in the 90s, accordantly much lower standards, and there was such a dearth of even half-competent shows in the genre at the time. But season after season it was an uninspired hot mess of a show by comparison to the two that preceded it. You can call me a snob or an aging yester-yearer, but I'll go to my (apparently quite near? ;) grave sticking to that assessment. Yes Robert Picardo brings some much needed chops to a handful of decent episodes, but they are few and far between. The only good thing that came out of Voyager is that they crapped the bed so badly, Ronald Moore left the fold in frustration to go do essentially the same concept, only...you know, good, and very arguably the best science fiction show of the last thirty was the result.
And it's even more complicated, the chronology. Because half the TOS movies were mediocre, almost all the TNG movies were, and Enterprise came after Voyager but was arguably at least a little bit better and a little bit closer to emulating the TNG formula successfully. Meanwhile the last Abrams movie is actually kind of good? Discovery started strong and then went off the rails, Picard had everything going for it theoretically, and yet started bad, somehow got much worse and then kind of plateaued. Strange New Worlds might actually be more good than bad, but it's principle cast do tend to make me roll my eyes in how broadly drawn they are. It's not a "good --> bad" arrow of time (pun intended) by any stretch of the imagination. The quality rises and falls. But it's not all great and I'm telling you, subjective assessment or no, you can't convince me that said quality didn't peak with two back-to-back entries in particular. And yes, I also do genuinely believe there is a qualitative difference between how those two shows handled their morality plays compared to more recent entries. TNG and DS9 could be downright transgressive for their time, format, and place on the airwaves. The new shows play it much safer, relative to where the boundaries are today.
No "New Trek" doesn't suck and "Old Trek" doesn't rule. Rather, the vast majority of it has landed somewhere between silly and awful, but with periods of true genius when the stars aligned with certain talented groups of people. But the last truly great constellation in that sense was a while ago. Sorry my friend, but this analysis is not 'inflexible' but rather only logical. ;) SnowRise let's rap 12:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't deflecting criticism; in fact, I didn't even bother to address the criticism because the same criticism can be levied at TOS and their films. If you're at all familiar with the history of television and film (and I can only assume that you are), then you know that this isn't a reductionist argument at all, it's a simple fact that audience tastes change over time, and with it, the structure and presentation of drama. You couldn't make a film like Star Trek: The Motion Picture because there's very little action driving the film. The space dock sequence is notorious as a sleep aid for insomniacs (particularly the 12 hour looped version on YouTube). Recently, I was raving about Three-Body, the Chinese television production of the 2008 novel. It's great because it doesn't use or rely on the modern science fiction action adventure formula, and frames the entire story instead as slow, methodical detective fiction. It works for me, and I thought it was the best science fiction show I've seen in decades, but the majority of the US public wouldn't spend a minute on it because they have different tastes.
The beauty of what someone like Tarantino did with Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, is he went back in time decades or more, borrowed heavily from old stories and dramatic structures that simply could no longer connect with modern audiences, and made them new again. Say what you want about Tarantino and his weird foot fetish and whatever, but to do that, to accomplish that, to take what is old and make it new again, that is extremely difficult, and frankly, rare to pull off. New Trek isn't able to do what you want it to do, so it has to appeal to new ways of doing things, and that's what you're really upset about. And hey, I get it, I've had this argument a hundred times, that's why I titled it "Nerd fight". Nobody is right or wrong here, it's just different ways of seeing the same story. And I'm not going to get into Battlestar Galactica at all, as it had plenty of crappy episodes that I could talk about from here to the end of time. But let's take your argument further: Does GoT suck in total because they couldn't pull off the last season? I came to DSC with an open mind, but I wanted to hate it. And once I realized that, I was able to enjoy it for what it was. Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Chess notation

Hi, may I suggest you read the article Algebraic notation (chess) for your game with User:Theleekycauldron? Main things to note are that in standard algebraic notation you don't give the "from" square", only the "to" square. Instead just give the initial letter of the piece. Also moves are numbered in pairs. So it's 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, not 1.e4 2.e5 3.Nf3 4.Nc6. Anyway all those details are in the article, which if I say so myself is looking close to GA status. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, MaxBrowne2: sorry, I missed this in the mix initially! To be perfectly honest with you, after the first couple of edits I thought I was conforming with algebraic notation, as best I could recall--but I guess my recollection of the format is even rustier than my gameplay--and neither likely to impress, I fear! I'll review the article and do my best to try to keep my entries consistent from here, but please feel free to make corrections directly without concern for offending me, should you see any errors and be so inclined! SnowRise let's rap 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling enquiry

Your spelling corrections were welcome, but one was unnecessary. (I did have to double-check though.) Bazza (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bazza 7 Oh, how peculiar! I'm usually very good of those UK/US variant spellings because of my background, but I was pretty sure about that one! (And so was my supposedly dual-dictionary spellchecker!). Thanks for letting me know: that is very much appreciated, even if it is a little bit of egg on my face! I'll go change it back unless you got to it already. SnowRise let's rap 13:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change back: us English English speakers can't make up our mind about whether it's "enquiry" or "inquiry", so seem to put up with both. So no egg on your face. The greater joy of Wikipedia is these little things lurking within the bigger picture. Regards, Bazza (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm getting to be the poster child for idiosyncrasies: having background (and lived in) both the UK and US (and elsewhere in the commonwealth and anglophone worlds), having a formal background in linguistics, having worked in various professional (and volunteer! :) writing environments, and finally, being a part of the global English community online these days, same as most all of us, sometimes I find myself oscillating between various usages, and lately even mixing and matching certain spellings for certain phonemes between different words using the same sound! Good golly, you'd think over time I'd be settling into more stable usage, but it seems to be going in the opposite direction: sometimes I don't know what's going to come out of my mouth/fingers until it happens! And as you say, the ongoing old/new and regional variations just within UK usage isn't exactly making things any clearer!
All that said, out of respect for the OP and LANGVAR (and not wanting to appear to be a needlessly over-
prescriptive language maven), I have reverted the change to the section header. Maybe others will notice and be edified. SnowRise let's rap 14:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Barnstar for you

The Helping Hand Barnstar
I was looking for a barnstar for editors who help with understanding others but I guess a helping hand is a good way to think of it. Springee (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you very much Springee! I've never received this one before, and I'm very flattered by the sentiment behind it. :) While you're here, I should take the opportunity to say that I appreciated your own comments in the same sequence of discussion--not just because I found them very well framed and worded, but also because there have been moments in the last couple of days when I've felt I was being perceived as a bugbear for people aligned along both of the general poles of this cluster of issues, so it was a good moment to hear someone say that they understood the distinction I was trying to make and appreciated the value of the third way perspective in this instance. I usually try not to be too nonplussed by feedback or the level of support I am enjoying, minute to minute, so long as I feel I am doing the right thing/backing the best way forward, but your first two comments in particular genuinely did have a little perk-me-up quality to them, so thank you for that. :) SnowRise let's rap 20:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew that was the sort of reaction I was going to get every time I would be giving you a lot more barn stars :D
I really do appreciate the way you were trying to thread the needle on that topic. Far too often it does feel like this is a zero sum game and people are either with or against us (which ever side "us" happens to be). Perhaps the worst part of that is when we fail to see the difference between someone who is trying to be fair to both sides vs someone who is trying to "win". I had really hesitated to respond to that discussion but I did so in large part because of your articulation that the issue is the behavior rather than the basic belief. Anyway, your comment was really appreciated and I hope we have more understandings in the future. Springee (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt we will! And I'm very glad you did contribute, for substantially similar reasons to those which inspired you to speak up in the first place. Thanks so much again for the kind words, and please stop in here again some time. :) SnowRise let's rap 03:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Just an applogy

Hey SnowRise, I wanted to apologies as I just disagreed with you in both RfCs associated with the barn star above. I think we both saw similar facts but on balance fell to opposite sides of the "what to do about it" fence. Just wanted to let you know. -I hope you are having a great day! Springee (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What!? Oh, the betrayal!! Heheh, no, I get it Springee! I was, afterall, the lone skeptic about the necessity for a sanction in that discussion there for quite a while myself. I've since been won over that it's preventative and necessary in light of the newest information, but it's certainly reasonable minds may vary territory. I still appreciate the cogency and articulation of your position. :)
And I'm having...well, a sleep deprived day. But once I get some rest, I think I shall be having a very good one indeed. I've had my nose to the grindstone, burning the midnight oil on work and other obligations for weeks straight, but I'm about to have my first proper sequence of multiple contiguous days with little to nothing pressing to do (on the proper work front anyway) in...well, some fair few months anyway! I don't know if my brain is well adapted to deal with the world under such terms anymore at this point, but if my household will allow it, I think I might start with a nap! :D I'm rambling--have a good day yourself, Spring-G! SnowRise let's rap 18:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherished

August songs
my story today

Thank you for the precious recognition you offered me! I replied in short there, including that its title and exuberance reminded me of this cherished cherry by a user I miss. - As for Berit Lindholm: I am proud that I was able, with much help from someone who knows Swedish, to improve her article from a stub to GA, which - prompted by the reviewer - even includes personality on top of performance. I wish the one sentence on the Main page represented some of that. Instead, we had a poor sentence mentioning "damn", possibly intended to attract, in something that her former director (who died in a tragic accident) "is said to have called her" - we don't know, that is, all based on rumor, and some probably lost in translation from Swedish. If it wasn't for the good image, I would have protested. Why this hook and not any of my suggestions? Because the present DYK team believes that opera is not interesting to our "broad audience". Quite systematically so, which made me go on strike when 2023 came, one of two reasons to call it a year of resilience. I had hoped that for a woman like her - not a beginning singer of our local opera but one who achieved world fame - they would understand, but no. I hope that 10,000 of the 13k+ who looked only saw the image and not the poor "hook", but what if people at her funeral saw it? I also resent that the belittling sentence is now forever on top of her talk and in the archive. I normally copy the hook to the project archive but not for that one. Just to clarify a bit why it made me so silent, - I called it unproud ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following
    TFAs
    will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • dead names
    found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The
    XfD
    forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol
|
October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September music

September songs
my story today

WP:ARBINFOBOX for 10 years, standing and singing -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary of Clara and Robert Schumann, but I was too late with our gift. Just for fun: when do you think did Mrs. and Mr. Schumann get their infoboxes, and by whom? (The answer can be found here, but please think first.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. - Latest pics from a weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is The Company of Heaven ("company" with a double meaning, but angelic company in the end). - Pictures of the one more day yes, but no others yet, it's a week with concert or opera almost every night! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Snow Rise,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the

NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here
- it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet

WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more
, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October music

October songs
my story today

My story today is sad but great. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC) A few more pics, and see my talk for what we sang today (I'm the woman in red), and what Tabea Zimmermann played (today's story on her birthday): I heard it, and it's on YouTube. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More pics, and today's story is on a birthday, and the real DYK was already on that birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of the month, I thought of Brian Bouldton, and his ways to compromise, - with musings about peace there, - feel free to join. Hevenu shalom aleichem. Today is Reformation Day, and I believe that reformation is a work in progress. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

Just to make sure you see this ping; thanks for any advice you can add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

A wikiheart for you!

Wikiheart
Your long post on
Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war perfectly sums up why the clip does not at all merit inclusion in our encyclopedia. Thanks for sharing the great insight among the newer (and some more experienced) editors. Awesome Aasim 03:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well thank you very much, Aasim: that's very kind of you--though I'm sure somebody else would have been along to say much the same before long if I hadn't. In truth, I understand why some editors do not more intuitively familiar with some of the distinctions I emphasized:
WP:NOTCENSORED
gets much more prominently emphasized in our informal/organic onboarding process than do the many counterbalancing principles which limit it's more general language. So its understandable that some initially get an impression of the policy as a much more absolute / less nuanced principle than it actually is under community consensus.
Still, the risks of harm from that video staying up are so substantial that I hope some admin decides to proactively remove it under one of the prongs of policy it currently violates, be it
WP:DUE, or just a general invocation of administrative prerogative of the substantial potential for harm. But we'll see. I don't have much doubt it's coming down soon, but every extra minute sooner that it gets done would be significantly for the better, imo. SnowRise let's rap 03:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The actual image is hosted on Commons. Right now the most Wikipedia can do is put it on the bad image list pending deletion discussion on Commons. This is one of these cases that
WP:IAR certainly applies: the risk of emotional harm that is caused with leaving that video up far outweighs the desire to include the material. As I said bluntly on the Commons deletion discussion, we are not LiveLeak or any other shock site. Awesome Aasim 04:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I'm going to try to find time to comment at the commons discussion in a bit myself. But I do think we could revdel the edit at least. At a minimum the video should not be live now. But edit warring over it will only delay the ultimate resolution further. Perhaps I'll appeal to the editor who re-instated it, insofar as they did technically violate BRD and seem to accept now that the sourcing is insufficient, if nothing else. SnowRise let's rap 04:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, strike that last observation--I got the comments of the editor who reverted another participating in the discussion conflated: they are in fact two different editors. SnowRise let's rap 04:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Snow Rise:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November music

November songs
story · music

Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have some time: today I have three items on the Main page, almost too much of a good thing! Bach's amazing cantata with the unusual scale, first performed 300 years ago OTD, the nun for the prostitutes, and Schumann's wedding gift for Clara. Also first day of vacation pics uploaded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following
    Extended Confirmed Restriction
    has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Just fyi

I saw your comment at the RfA, where you said very kindly that you shared some of my concerns. I really, really, really don't want to reopen a discussion of my own making that ought to remain closed, but... just so you know, your reasons and my reasons are different. I know that's annoyingly vague, and I'm sincerely sorry not to be more forthcoming, but at least I'd like not to leave a misunderstanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trypt. Whatever the cause for your reticence to elaborate, I'm sure it's a good reason. Speaking for myself, I'm leaning in to the feedback provided by others in the discussion and assuming that in fact Clovermoss will make a positive addition to the admin corps. It's just that, being as my own minute experience with her left me with some (admittedly small and probably isolated) concerns, I thought the best thing I could contribute to the discussion was not an !vote for or against, but an exhortation to the candidate to approach similar matters with an extra bit of caution as an administrator, as she seems likely to soon be. I hope she takes it in the spirit it was intended; I debated saying nothing, but on reflection felt this was the right feedback to provide from my very, very narrow window of experience with her, as a member of the community. SnowRise let's rap 20:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol
|
January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December greetings

December: story · music · places

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. - I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good call at ANI re 3D images

I was reading the account first at

ANI one which you closed (diff) and just wanted to commend you on the closure statement. I only regret that I couldn't have weighed in to give even more support to that view before it closed, but I can see the argument for disposing of it quickly and forthrightly to nip any censorship-freedom irrelevancies in the bud before they got started, so in the end I think the timing was good, also. Good call all around; thanks for what you do. Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you very much, Mathglot--that is very kind of you to say, and appreciated. My thinking was that while there may be a meaningful conversation to be had around the OP's media contributions, irrespective of whether they were ultimately used, it just wasn't one for ANI, where two users had been reported and, under the circumstances (clear cut facts presented by the OP themselves, uniform response from a handful of editors) deserved to have a quick clearing of the matter. I suspect the OP is operating generally in good faith, but may not as yet have a veteran's grasp of what constitutes a content vs. a behavioural matter. Now on the one hand, you can certainly see their decision to ask as a display of goodfaith: how are they supposed to know, unless they ask, afterall? However, the specifics of the request showed not only a misunderstanding of the remit of ANI, but that they are still getting up to speed on some basic discussion/consensus procedure.
So, the matter being a content dispute, and the feedback increasingly reflecting this (being generally well-intentioned and cogent, but much of it simply misplaced in terms of fora/namespace), I thought it made sense to redirect the OP. If possible, I prefer that any party (vague or specific) to any matter I close go away feeling heard, so I tried to give them the tools to make the case they want to make in a better way, in a more appropriate place. Hopefully they now see the distinction that this is a content issue, and now have the right policies to base their arguments for their media around. I don't know that they have a particularly strong chance, but at least they will be making their case in the right space, and will get something of a community verdict on their first few outings in this area, before they decide whether to dedicate more time to such content.
So, all factors considered, I felt it was a fairly straightforward call. I'm actually a skeptic of non-admin closures at ANI; I prefer a mop's stamp or to just let the matter die a natural death, so to speak, unless the matter is extremely straight-forward--meaning not just that the policy issues are plain and responses generally uniform, but also that a closure has clear benefits over the matter being held open. Since I sometimes permit myself a little twinge of annoyance when a lesser standard is employed than my own unseen and self-designated threshold, in a non-mop closure at ANI, I figure the least I can do is hold myself to the same test. ;) So, it's nice to get positive feedback! Only issue is, you reminded me that I forgot to {{nac}} the close (not required, but good pro forma behaviour, per the above), and now it's too late--drat!
SnowRise let's rap 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taiwan People's Party. about “Is the Taiwan People's Party appropriately characterized as populist?(RfC)” Thank you for helping out! 星枢 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, Snow Rise

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the

Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

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

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

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


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

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

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


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]