This is an archive of past discussions with User:Girth Summit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to the one hundred and sixty second WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 17,227 last month to 17,270 on 29 September 2021). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 207 is ahead of WP:GM who have 90. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 85 while WP:GM has 69 out of a total number of 4,690 articles.
Currently we have sixty eight Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The October 2021 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered October 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Congratulations, Girth Summit! The article you nominated, Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Congrats my dear friend and colleague. I know you shall do well with your new appointments and the tools that come with it. Congratulations once more you, & a major thank you for all the hard work you have put in towards bettering the collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping you could take a look at the history of Draft:Singhu Border Lynching (2021) and the series of reverts going to and from mainspace to draftspace. I've done my best to initiate discussion on the talk page but I don't feel I'm making much headway. Could I get your thoughts on the notability etc... please? Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I’m so sorry
I know this might have caused you some regret but please don’t be too hard on yourself there’s isn’t any logical way you could have known of their less than ethical practices. I’m sorry about the embarrassment this might have caused you but nonetheless don’t be discouraged. Hang in there my friend no one blames you. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Celestina007, thanks for reaching out though, but honestly, I don't feel embarrassed about it. The conclusion that Arbcom came to was based on an investigation that I was not a party to, involving information that I could not have been aware of at that time and am not aware of now. Based only on what I would have been able to see when I reviewed their work, I would stand by the nomination, so I don't feel any discomfort around my own actions. GirthSummit (blether)11:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I’m indeed very glad to hear this, Thanks for your tireless efforts in bettering the collaborative project, we are more than grateful to have you here. Celestina007 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Glad to see you joined the team. If there's anything I can help with, feel free to reach out (Email or IRC better these days.) Hope all is well. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Tony - I've received a whole bunch of very helpful emails, including from you, need a bit of time to read and digest but I'll let you know if anything's not clear. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you used the spi helper script to reblock ABCghiNea. I'm not sure what options you picked or whether it's the fault of the script itself, but the notice on his Talk page says he was blocked "temporarily" not indefinitely; it also talks about expiration of the block. Perhaps you could fix it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a bit of an oddity - I've fixed the message manually. GeneralNotability - ever seen this happen before? I did indeed use SPIhelper to do the block, it applied an indefinite 'confirmed sock' block, but [User talk:ABCghiNea: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia the message it left] seems inappropriate. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)12:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The user-tagging and talk page message code is, surprisingly, one of the most fragile pieces of spihelper. In this case I accidentally pushed a feature I was testing to the main branch and my changes quietly broke things. I think I've pushed a fixed version now. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this so quickly GN - I'll make sure to check my tags next time I block someone like that, but I'm sure you'll have fixed it. Bbb23, see above FYI. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Um, I also have suspicions about another account and IPs. Interaction timeline is not conclusive but bears some similarities. Should I send you details or open another SPI? Polyamorph (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Unless there's any evidence you can't mention on-wiki, I'd prefer it in an SPI please - that makes it easier for others to see what I'm looking at and confirm/refute any conclusions. Thanks GirthSummit (blether)11:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you're a regular at raising SPIs? If you're a Twinkle user, I'd strongly suggest using that, it makes it much easier than doing it by hand. Let me know if you need any help with the paperwork. GirthSummit (blether)11:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems you're right about OW, a red herring. But I'm glad I wasn't just being paranoid about the other socks, I wasn't expecting that many! Polyamorph (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that was quite a drawer. No worries about the OW confusion, if in doubt it's usually better to mention suspicions and let us investigate. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)13:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Cullen House article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 7, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 7, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Gog says you are working on the blurb, so just replace the current place-holder when you are done
Hi Jimfbleak, yes, Gog mentioned to me that this was going ahead - I'd like to have a bash at writing a blurb (I haven't done one before), I'll see if I can put something together over the weekend. Thanks GirthSummit (blether)18:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for Cullen House, "about a historic building in Scotland, built around 1600 and substantially enlarged and remodelled several times in its history, and family seat to the Earls of Seafield"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, During the edit warring that went on in 2021 Singhu border lynching prior to the deletion discussion, someone place a few unreliable sources tags throughout the article. I've since gone through and checked the sources and doubled them up with more reliable sources. I had completed these only to now enter a new battle with the editor who was so desperate to delete the article in the first place. I was hoping to get your opinion on Zee News as a credible news source. I couldn't find any red flags against it but the above mentioned editor has referred to a mention on the reliable sources noticeboard. Surely this would not automatically mean that Zee News in unreliable? Would it? Anyway if you check out the edit history you can see what has gone one. I'm beginning to regret having anythong to do with this article. Anyway, Penny for your thoughts and sorry to ask for your assistance again. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest posting on RSN, with a link to the article, and a brief description of the content you're using it to support. It might be one of these sources that are OK for basic factual assertions, but more dubious for political stuff - I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the sources in the region to have an opinion myself. GirthSummit (blether)10:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, that was pretty much my take on it too. Thanks anyway. I think I'll let it slide for now, I'm not emotionally invested and at least the article itself is still there. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the airport sockpuppet guy earlier. It seems that others too think it's OK to delete references from entries in airport articles. These guys seem a law unto themselves e.g. diff1, diff2, and diff3. Diff 2 is especially brazen because of the edit summary. Can you take a look and maybe help me understand if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick other these guys are playing fast and loose with the rules? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
10mmsocket, looking briefly at those diffs, it looks like someone is removing assertions that the service will start on a particular date, which presumably had its own source; if the service has now started, and is supported by the latest version of a different source used within the article, then removing the 'will start on 1 Nov' source could make sense. If you're concerned about it, you could ask the editor if they can explain what they're doing in a bit more detail, and check that the current information is sourced? Cheers GirthSummit (blether)08:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. Much appreciated. It just seems to me that some articles - airports and train operating companies to name a couple of types - are magnets for original research and listcruft. The very fact that some editors seem to think these articles are exempt from the normal rules of referencing (see my talk page from a few minutes ago) means there's something very wrong here. However it's not something I can change single handed so I'll pick my battles where I can make a difference to the encyclopaedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, yeah. I don't personally see any real encyclopedic value in maintaining a list of all the destinations served by a particular airport - that seems like the sort of thing an external link to their website would achieve. But sometimes you have to evaluate the amount you care about something, the amount of time you have on your hands, and whether there are other issues that are more important to you. I can't say this is a priority for me... GirthSummit (blether)11:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
First of all, many thanks for fixing my screw up with the leading space, I was tearing my hair out trying to fix it.
I have a query about the SPI. The behavioural evidence against the account I reported is pretty compelling especially if you look at the Interaction Timeline eg [1],[2]. I'm wondering if I should use the template warning suggested by @RoySmith:? WCMemail18:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
If I'm honest, I'd probably leave it. I would be surprised if that account ever edited again, and the discussion closer ought to take the likelihood of canvassing into account. GirthSummit (blether)19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, on the leading space thing - it's no big deal, and if it ever happens again just leave it for a clerk to sort out. I use a script that makes doing stuff like that quick and easy; trying to do it manually would be hard. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)19:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
At least leading spaces are visible. Every once in a while, we get a username with a U+200E in it. That's geek-speak for an invisible special character that says "Here starts text that's written left-to-right". Those should only be needed when you've got mixed LTR and RTL text (say, Arabic or Hebrew mixed in with English) but somehow manage to find their way into SPI reports once in a while. -- RoySmith(talk)19:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Wait What?
Following this, what???? You’ve visited and worked in the +234 in the past? You know what’s so amazing Girth, It’s so unbelievable when I discuss off wiki with editors in Europe or America, I mean it’s so mind blowing knowing the number of you all who have visited the 234. Oh well, I live in Lagos, it’s probably unlikely you are ever gonna visit again but if you do, let me know & id drive you around town & show you my city. Celestina007 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That's very kind! Yes, I used to do a fair amount of work in West Africa before I retrained to be a teacher - Nigeria, Cote D'Ivoire, Ghana, Cameroon - doing seabed surveys. I never spent much time in Lagos - we'd just fly into there from London then head straight for Port Harcourt, where the survey boats sailed from. Some of it was oil and gas related (when you want to move an oil rig, you have to use sonars to survey the seabed for anything that might get in the way of your anchor pattern), some of it was checking the levels of shipping lanes and planning dredging programmes. I wish we'd known each other back then, I'd have looked you up - I'm afraid those days are long behind me now, I hardly ever leave the UK these days. Still, if I get tired of teaching and go back to my old life, I'll let you know if I'm in the area... GirthSummit (blether)17:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that too. Safe to say you are internet famous. When you mentioned visiting Rivers state & then mentioned “Oil rig” I knew yeah!!!! You definitely do know what you are saying. Oh my! Good to know this! Celestina007 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
For telling me what I needed to hear. I'm a bit prone to overreact, so I'll keep off related changes, SPI and such for a while. Before I end up getting myself in (more) trouble. If you think I should get one, feel free to leave a talk page warning "improper use of warning template". Mako001 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any need to give you a template, saying the same thing that I already told you at the SPI case. Templates can be useful, but there's nothing 'official' about them - I prefer to write a personal message except in cases of obvious vandalism, page blanking, spamming etc. GirthSummit (blether)15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
So there was a user talk page created by an IP editor at User talk:The vandalism account. They substituted an indef-block template with the page creation. At first, seeing this I thought it was a new account that was registered for vandalism and that they put the indef block notice to prevent the vandalism from being noticed or something. But then I realized the account didn't exist and that an IP added the notice. So I was nominated the page for CSD because it's the talk page of a user that doesn't exist, but rereading the CSD for vandalism it doesn't look like it nessecarily fits the criteria (so I removed my CSD nomination). So should I do anything moving forward? I'm a bit tired from work and I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious and also feeling like I might have been a bit impulsive here in regards to how I acted. I'd appreciate any advice you have to offer. Clovermoss(talk)01:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it - it was probably someone just messing around. The page has been deleted now, as vandalism, so your tag couldn't have been too far from the mark. GirthSummit (blether)10:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Speaking as a Scot, I'd say that I'm aware of cricket. In the same way I know that some people, in certain parts of the world, play ice hockey, or petanque, or Aussie rules football. I live in York now of course, but YCC don't seem to be flavour of the month. Maybe not a good time to try to get into it... GirthSummit (blether)22:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Two of my offspring, the twins, are eligible to play for the county, by the only rules worth anything. I think I'll spend the day re-watching the Botham/Willis test. -Roxy the sceptical dog.wooF10:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've been editing for a few months and counter-vandalism has become my main area of focus, it'd be great to receive some training on how to do it better.
DirkJandeGeer (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, thanks for reaching out. I'm afraid I'm pretty busy at the moment, both in real life and on Wiki - I'm afraid I'm not taking on new students at the moment. You might want to reach out to one of the other trainers listed at WP:CVUA - they're all very experienced. Don't worry too much about the time zone thing - the training can be done asynchronously. Best GirthSummit (blether)15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and sixty third WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 17,270 last month to 17,376 on 7 November 2021). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 205 is ahead of WP:GM who have 91. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 87 while WP:GM has 70 out of a total number of 4,695 articles.
Currently we have seventy Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Newsletter
At a member's request a new option has been made available for the newsletter delivery. If you do not want the full text of the newsletter delivering each month you can now opt to have just a link to the newsletter sent to your talk page. You can select this option by using L in the Newsletter column against your name on the project members list.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The November 2021 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered November 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
21:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
If I remember correctly, I said that I thought the notability was marginal, and that it might go either way if it was nominated for deletion. That process has happened now, and I'd advise you to accept that and go do sonething else. Your deletion review won't be successful - deletion reviews aren't places to discuss whether or not a subject is notable, you have to establish that the deletion procedure wasn't done properly - like, if the closer was involved, or the consensus wasn't followed, or something. As far as I can see there weren't any procedural failings, so the DRV is likely to uphold the outcome of the AfD. GirthSummit (blether)10:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
Done. For future reference, WP:SPI is the best place to report this kind of thing (I'd strongly recommend using WP:TWINKLE to raise reports there, it makes it much easier). There was already a case open for this account, so that speeded things up - they're blocked, feel free to revert anything they did per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Best GirthSummit (blether)16:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
One more help. I am unable to revert to a version which has been edited many times, not aware of the process. Could you please revert it back to the version by Kailash29792 on 18th Nov?
Thanks Panchalidraupadi (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I am looking at doing a GA reassessment and the nominee has been blocked (that's fine, ferret sorted this, along with the IP request for WP:SO.) Fine. I went looking for another editor to be responsible for the nomination (and the article) and looked to the top editor. I find something odd here. I'm looking at their contributions - contributions cease in 2019. How is it that this editor with a previous SI is getting category deletion notices in 2021, if there have been no contributions since December 2019? A bit odd --Whiteguru (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Those notices get sent automatically when a category the account created is nominated for deletion. Whoever creates the nomination would have to manually disable the 'notify creator' option to stop them being sent. It looks like the account has been abandoned, and the SPI didn't find conclusive evidence, so I don't think there's anything more to be done unless the account suddenly starts editing again. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)16:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Welcome to the one hundred and sixty fourth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 17,376 last month to 17,458 on 29 November 2021). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 204 is ahead of WP:GM who have 91. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 88 while WP:GM has 70 out of a total number of 4,696 articles.
Currently we have seventy one Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Happy Christmas
Just to say thanks for all the effort put in by members on articles covering the Yorkshire area and to wish everyone a Happy Christmas. It is time to take a break and to spend some time with family and friends. May be even to indulge yourself in the food and drink that abounds at this time of year or even make that occasional visit to a church. What ever you do over the festive season enjoy it and see you next year.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The December 2021 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered December 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Hi Spotanus. I'm quite busy at work at the moment, and not taking on any students for the time being. I note that your account is very new, and I'm not sure that diving immediately into counter-vandalism activities is the best way for you to start out here. You might consider using the WP:ADVENTURE to build up your skills first, and then think about trying to improve a few articles before diving straight into counter-vandalism stuff. Best GirthSummit (blether)19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Alexander Ellice slavery sources
Hi,
Since you reverted the source of Alexander Ellice biography, can you at least provide some consistent source about his slave trader past ?
Nothing in this page (your source) proves that he was a slave trader https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146638519 only that he ha
I reverted because your edit was a violation of our copyright policy - WP:COPYVIO. We may not copy content from other websites into our articles. I know nothing about this individual, and am not myself familiar with the sources - I suggest that you reach out on the article's talk page to the article's author, and discuss the matter with them. Best GirthSummit (blether)20:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Help
I have made a paper HAL TEDBF in hindi 3-4 months ago. So much time have passed but it is not linked with the language section mean that I cannot get on the English page of I am on Hindi. Please help me. I need this feature/function to link other pages also. I ame Shears (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're asking me to do. Are you talking about linking to an article on Hindi Wikipedia from English Wikipedia? Please explain exactly what it is you want to do, ideally providing links to the relevant articles. Thanks GirthSummit (blether)09:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi - apologies for the (very) slow response, I'm afraid that I've been swamped with real-life work over the last few days. I'm afraid that I'm still not sure what it is you want to do: which page do you want to link from? Why do you want to link to a Hindi article from English Wikipedia? If you can explain more fully, I'll try my best to advise. GirthSummit (blether)21:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
We haven't interacted too much though I have seen you around and we have been involved in discussion before but I wanted to thank you for your words at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Reywas92. They were very sound and I agreed with most of what you said. It reminds me a Wikipedia principle I have come to adopt throughout my interactions here ad well as in life.
"One of the least enforced but most critical policies on the project is our need to remain civil at all times, no matter the provocation. If something you might say would be unacceptable at a large meeting of professionals in a conference room, then it is unacceptable here. Insults very often are an insight into the person making them, not on the target of the aspersions. Insults will never yield positive outcomes. Incivility reduces productivity, engagement, and idea generation."
Words affect others, tone affects others and I'm still learning this despite years of trying to perfect it. When everything is going well and others are agreeing with us it is easy to be civil. The more adversity we face we, as humans, feel we must fight the fire by unloading and civility is often the first thing we toss out the window. --ARoseWolf21:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
We're none of us perfect. If I could add up the amount of time I've wasted typing out a reply that I want to send, then deleting it and typing the reply I know I ought to send, I'd probably have... well, enough time to do something useful with. Build a boat maybe, or learn to ski. The way I see it, the person who remains civil and professional is acting entirely in their own interests - people coming to a discussion cold will generally be far more inclined to agree with the calm person referring to policy than the angry person venting all over the place. We're all human though - there are so many situations where it is an ingrained response to give a sarcastic, snarky or downright hostile response. I always try to imagine it being quoted back at me out of context, and my having to justify it to people who weren't there at the time - better not to make it in the first place.
I type, delete and retype messages all the time. If I had a US dollar for every time I deleted a message and simply walked away from the discussion I would be, I know, the richest person in North Alaska at the moment, of course that may or may not be a very big accomplishment. Either way, I understand you perfectly and I am so glad I am not the only one doing that. It's one of those things that you know but it's good to hear or see someone else experiencing it as well. --ARoseWolf21:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
SeanM1997
Back on 31 October you advised SeanM1997 at User talk:SeanM1997 to clearly state on his user page that he is using two different accounts to edit the same articles. He has not done this and continues active editing using both accounts on the same articles, e.g. Edinburgh Airport. Perhaps it's time to remind him of his obligations. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there any actual disruption going on - are they edit warring or anything like that? The account names are so similar that I doubt there is any intention to deceive; I've advised them of best practice already, I'm not personally inclined to take any further action unless there is something more than the use of two separate but similarly named accounts. GirthSummit (blether)15:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
About flags
Hello, Turkish peoples have spread to many parts of the world, I am making flags for these peoples to be recognized more, the flags I make are not meaningless, all of these flags have a meaning, please do not delete the flags I have added, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahinBasaran (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
You can't add flags here if you have invented them yourself - we are here to collect existing knowledge, not to propogate new ideas. I see that you have been blocked from editing now - you'll need to agree to stop adding flags like this if you wish to be unblocked. GirthSummit (blether)11:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to be that guy, but I've never watched the Big Bang Theory, and I've no idea what you're talking about. I respect both of you as editors, and I hate to be a killjoy, but this thread was started by a now-indef-blocked user who was certainly being disruptive, but who probably doesn't really understand what they were doing wrong - let's not cause them any more frustration and confusion by turning it into a sideshow. GirthSummit (blether)20:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Girth, it's a very popular show, maybe not some ppl's cup of tea, but it's fun, goofy, warm hearted. It hits on a number of cultural elements of my generation so it hits all the right buttons for me. You should give it a try. Govvy (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not about the show, or the fun - I feel bad about asking you to stop, fun is definitely a good thing. It's just the circumstances - I don't think this person was intentionally breaking our rules, they just didn't understand what was wrong with their actions. They don't need to see us laughing and joking about it. GirthSummit (blether)21:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
Hello, Girth Summit. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Girth Summit Test Page, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Your close of that awful ANI was spot on and I think you parsed the various options just right. Having been at the sharp end of the discussion I have developed a new appreciation of how unpleasant ANI is. It makes DRV a walk in the park by comparison. My main gripe is the length of time the thread was open. Obviously not your fault as you fixed the issue, but there has to be a better way to moderate disputes of this kind. Quicker closing and policing of behaviour would probably have seen no need for formal sanctions at all. Any how, thanks again for bringing this to an end. SpartazHumbug!23:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Threads like that are tricky - it's clear that a substantial number of people want something to be done, but with lots of people pulling in different directions it's tempting just to scroll down and leave it to somebody else. I'm sorry that one was left for so long though, and I'm glad that you think I called it right. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)09:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Hi Girth Summit, May you have a bright and beautiful holiday season. Thank you for everything you do for this community and for the encyclopedia! Have a happy and healthy 2022!
Girth Summit,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, missed your original message. Yes, I've noticed that every now and again canmore is unavailable for a day or two. It usually comes back online fairly quickly. GirthSummit (blether)07:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Hi Girth Summit! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Yet another new sock of İsmail Kendir [4], whose socks you've blocked before. Obvious case, as he is repeating word by word the same gibberish some of his previous socks posted on my talk in December. Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Welcome to the one hundred and sixty fifth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 17,458 last month to 17,514 on 2 January 2022). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 204 is ahead of WP:GM who have 91. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 88 while WP:GM has 69 out of a total number of 4,703 articles.
Currently we have seventy one Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Happy New Year
Just a Happy New Year to all those active members of he Yorkshire project, hope you all had a good time over the Festive period and are ready for the new year. Hopefully it will not be as disrupive as the previous couple of years.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The January 2022 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered January 2022 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
12:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Apology
Thank you for pointing out my vandalism of the Critical Race Theory article. After a careful review of my actions and learning more about Wikipedia I have come to appreciate the work of the many editors who as it seems have a thankless job, yet contribute so much good quality information to the English speaking pubic. I am unsure how I can make up for my actions seeing as they have already been reverted. I sincerely regret my actions. I realize that if I have an issue with the presentation of information in an article I can sandbox a change and seek guidance whether my proposed changes adhere to the standards of Wikipedia. I intend to do that. I do not intend to take the content of articles into my own hands anymore it is unwise, unwelcome and rude. Thank you for this valuable lesson. Godspeed18 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
I'm not sure whether this is a perennial discussion amongst SPI folk or not, so forgive me if it is.
In my 'work' reviewing AFC contributions I encounter a larger number of sock folk than perhaps the usual non admin editor. Part of what I do at AFC is to follow the pictures of drafts to Commons. There I also encounter sock folk, often the same folk.
I'm aware of global locks, and I don't think that is the topic I'm asking about.
en WP has probably the most rigorous SPI process anywhere. Does that process get (somehow) shared with Commons? If not, should it?
When I say "shared" I mean as a matter of course, not when SPI folk and ordinary editors decide to tell Commons admins.
I may be being naïve, of course I may. I may also be planting seeds.
Why did I choose your talk page rather than, say, sock project talk page? Pure whimsy! Plus I respect your attention to detail. Obviously I do the same for other SPI folk, but you happened to appear in my watchlist "conveniently", hence my whimsy 😇 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me17:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Timtrent - happy new year, and thanks for the kind words.
So, if a sock is reported here, and the master has already been locked for cross-wiki abuse, then requesting a global lock at meta is very easy from within an SPI (it's literally ticking a box in the script we use to block users, the request is made automatically). If the master isn't already blocked/locked, it's a bit more of a judgment call - being blocked on another project, even if it involves socking, isn't in itself a barrier to editing here. Different projects have different policies and behavioural expectations too, so I'd have to be pretty confident that a user was editing disruptively and in contravention of local policy at multiple wikis before requesting a g lock.
In terms of sharing information, I'm not aware of any process that actively pushes information to admins at other projects by default. SPIs are publicly viewable though, and we do sometimes ping commons admins from an SPI if we see evidence of socking over there while investigating it over here. There is also a checkusers mailing list, which includes CUs from all projects - so, if we have particular concerns that we can't disclose publicly on an SPI, we can share it with other CUs that way. I'm pretty new to the CU world though, this isn't something I've done myself yet.
If it's Commons you're primarily asking about, I might reach out to Ymblanter, who is an admin both here and on commons - he might be able to give you some tips on how/where/why to report users that you suspect of socking both here and on commons. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)17:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
If the English Wikipedia SPI established sockpuppetry, this is certainly accepted on Commons. If one of the users is already blocked on Commons, others get blocked as well. The problem is if none of them is blocked on Commons, then some indication of misbehavior (not just sockpuppetry) is required there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I suppose what I am asking both of you (pinging {Ymblanter because they may not see this otherwise) is whether there ought to be a more formal process to share information. I don't want to ask in a forum because I don't feel competent to make the correct suggestions, and I'm happy to ignore it now I've mentioned it. The basic question is "would it improve the projects who might be sharing information?"
I'm better informed now, thank you. I've often wondered about getting involved with SPI, but AFC is more than enough for my time at present. I also suspect I may be more effective in finding and fighting spam/UPE without the extra toolkit to worry about being sure not to use! FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me20:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
You can always mail information to Commons checkusers, there are five of them. For structural information, I do not know, may be stewards do something like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is a project for cross-wiki coordination against UPE at m:Wikiproject:Antispam. It's mostly geared towards long-term complex cases though and less towards the "wannabe rapper writes a spammy draft on enwiki and uploads his selfies to commons" stuff. Spicy (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Came across an old messed up ref and realized user was 'new' back when. But checking through user's contributions it's 6 inserted refs to own works in 4 articles. You have already gently mentioned there might be problems with these edits, and they didn't continue. And just briefly checking Google they seem a most up-and-up earnest fella.
But, having perused WP:COI and stuff I think I'm still uncomfortable with... when is there a problem with self-stuffing, and when not? That is, when should the reaction go farther than "you shouldn'a done that, pardner"?
I've fixed the messed up refs now, but I'm left with the disturbing feeling that something more might be done. Should I just shuffle off into the sunset and leave the self-refs unmolested?
Partly my unease is due to my continuing discoveries of old cow patties all over the WP pastures. Y'know, those do accumulate without gnomes of some sort. Shenme (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a bit of a judgment call, I suppose. If an academic wants to contribute to our articles, I don't want to stop them - and it would seem reasonable that they might occasionally use their own publications as references, if they are the most relevant sources for the material they're writing about. On the other hand, if all an account does is add citations to stuff that they've written themselves, you might start to question what their motives are. If they aren't even adding new content, but are just adding citations to existing assertions - even more dubious. And if their publications are, well, not exactly in the top tier of scholarship, that is also something of a red flag. Lots of factors to consider. So yeah - a scholar who writes brilliant content and occasionally cites their own award-winning publications is not doing anything wrong. An account that adds no content, but adds links to their own articles in predatory journals to hundreds of articles is definitely using Wikipedia for promotion. The area in between these extremes is various shades of grey, and needs a bit of judgment.
Whatever they're doing, I'd say that the point we go beyond 'Please don't do that' (in terms of applying a block to the account) is the point at which they keep doing it once they've been asked to stop. As for whether or not to remove the material - that depends entirely on the merits of the case.
In this particular case, I'd suggest that you consider whether the content they added is WP:DUE, and whether the sources are sufficiently reliable to support it - if you feel they aren't, you can certainly use your editorial discretion and remove the material. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)09:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shenme the essay WP:ACADEME may be of some use to each of you in the discussion you are having. Handling the expert and the academic (which may be the same or different) is challenging. As we know, they are always correct, unless, of course, they are not. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me09:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Stu255
Hi Girth, I am replying to your message. No idea if I am doing this correctly?
First things first - what is your connection to the company? I ask because you are required to declare that sort of thing, especially if you have a financial stake. I'll be happy to give you some advice once we've cleared that up. Thanks GirthSummit (blether)14:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Hello, on 18 July 2020, you left a comment on Talk:Jason Drummond, where you told me to let you know if a user that I had complained about vandalising the Jason Drummond page continued to do so. If you now look at the recent history on the Drummond page, you can see that the same user I complained about two years ago has since continued to vandalise the page. I was accused of being an SPA and have since not touched the page, but I read the news today continues to function as an SPA solely for this page, not only that, but he's now very obviously refactored the article in a way to mispresent Drummond as someone with significant legal troubles. He has done this by using primary sources and changing "private prosecution" to "private criminal prosecution" (when in reality there is no such thing as a private criminal prosecution - it's either a private prosecution by an individual, or a criminal prosecution by the CPS). Further, inserting a section on "civil litigation", which is based solely on primary sources, with the only real purpose of separating the failed private prosecution into its own section which he has subsequently titled "criminal prosecution", in a bid to completely mislead readers. As a final point, almost every single edit since your note on 18 July 2020 by this SPA, has been solely dedicated to misrepresenting Drummond on this wiki page, despite that the user repeatedly posted that he was trying to make "improvements". I had asked Wikipedia previously to put a stop to this, but the ongoing vandalism of this page has continued by this individual now for two years, and nobody has taken any action. Please can you finally do something about this user and put a permanent stop to his vandalism? Please can you then revert the changes he's made since your comment in 2020 and protect the page indefinitely from further edits?
I've cut away some of the dodgiest looking stuff. It still needs more work, but I don't really have time right now, and I'm being hampered by the paywalls at the sources on the articles (I don't write about living people very often - newspaper sources aren't really my thing). I've posted at WP:BLPN asking for more eyes on it. GirthSummit (blether)19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
No problem. I still think there may be stuff in there that isn't policy-compliant, but I can't easily get at the some of the sources to check to see what is and is not supported. I may revisit it at a later date if someone doesn't get there first.
By the way, that logged out edit just revealed your IP address; if you are concerned about that, and would like to retain your privacy, I can have it removed from this history of this page? GirthSummit (blether)18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing this again, he's just added the part about the private prosecution, but again wording it as if it was a criminal prosecution. The distinction is clear: the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) is the only UK body for criminal prosecutions (i.e., where a crime has been committed and someone has been arrested and trialled). Private prosecutions based on allegations (which is what is reflected in the sources), should not be presented as criminal as they are not handled by the CPS. The sources (which are unavailable to the public without paying for a subscription), show with clarity that a) an individual had made allegations and brought a private prosecution against Drummond, and b) that prosecution was withdrawn and cost awarded for Drummond because the claimant submitted evidence that was found to be false and likely forged. I read the news today has also stated that 'the private prosecutor' had acted improperly, which again is not what the source states. For the avoidance of ongoing drama and edit wars, can I request the page to be locked? Since my SPA notice, I did not touch the page further, but this user continues to act as an SPA, solely to vandalise this page to suit his own needs. JulianPargetalk10:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've trimmed it, leaving only that which is supported by the sources. I've also noted that I don't think we should be including it - a private prosecution based on dubious evidence which was dropped seems not to warrant inclusion, in my view. You are welcome to comment on the talk page indicating whether or not you agree on that point. GirthSummit (blether)11:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to thank all other CUs and SPI clerks including you who I think doing a vital job by volunteering in this technical area. The biggest problem with User:Blogs19 is that they come back immediately with new accounts within hours or a day of being blocked. 2402:3A80:751:41E0:BE94:93C9:8862:D673 (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Girth i would like for your permission to move Yanga to the idols SA contestant winner please i just need your permission to movr the page! Please grant me this permission😰😰😨😇😇 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirra Jankbith (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi , Girth Summit I think LTA is again back with his new account and I've found new behavioral change ... I've also seen they giving death threats and using slangs on every editors talk page and the sock starts edits mostly corona virus related Article and I suspect that LTA also runs Admin account please look at also Admin accounts ... Please look at it 117.226.155.166 (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
He has posted the same at admin User:Deb talk-page. It looks you are writing and playing with words above to create confusion. Please don't do this. You say I suspect that LTA also runs Admin account please look at also Admin accounts. Is this any kind of joke? 2402:3A80:1C3C:7B26:9914:A77B:71C:BD7B (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
GS, please see 42.105.0.0/21 and their recent comment on User talk:Luk3. Unfortunately the range is kind of big and I have the feeling that if I run CU I might never come out of the dozens of editors I expect to show up. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Ha! I've got to say, I'm a bit confused that, from my perspective, it looks like there's an experienced Wikipedian, current admin and former arbcom member who is bending over backwards to support this LTA - is there some back story that I'm unaware of? GirthSummit (blether)13:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I was concerned that you were making controversial assertions, including information about medical conditions, based on exceedingly dubious sources, about living people. Since you haven't reinserted your assertion, and have gone to talk pages to discuss, no further action seems to be immediately necessary. You need to be more careful when writing about people in future however. GirthSummit (blether)18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Personal attack
I have addressed it you just don't like my answer, so you are ignoring it. There is no requirement for me to stop editing while dealing while you waffle on and implying there is just gaslighting.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and sixty sixth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 17,514 last month to 17,579 on 28 January 2022). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 204 is ahead of WP:GM who have 91. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 87 while WP:GM has 69 out of a total number of 4,715 articles.
Currently we have seventy Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The February 2022 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered February 2022 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
17:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
KK
When you talk to them, if you manage to get through, do mention WP:CITEVAR and the need to respect existing citation styles and inputs. And if mass linking was desired, we'd have bots for this.
Also, you wrote 'edit way', when you likely meant 'edit war'.
I am guilty of many typos. Sometimes I wonder if I have undiagnosed dyslexia (my dad has it), I never seem to notice them until after the fact. Thanks for the links, they may be helpful. GirthSummit (blether)21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_brightened.jpg)
