![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
1 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | ← | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi-Aharon-Lichtenstein.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Avraham, Shalom. I wanted to ask you about the rule of one-revert per day in Wikipedia articles. If I made an initial edit on the West Bank article, and someone came along and moved the edit into a different section, am I permitted within 24-hours to make my first revert to the other editor's change, and restore my edit to its original place? Davidbena ( talk) 15:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Avi. Could you chuck a shufti at this article, Benjamin Murmelstein. I woke to see a notification on my page that I had engaged in a copyright violation, by using sources I always use for these articles. Felt as if I'd been behaving with criminal license. I know how to write stuff up - but I know nothing of these details. It does seem extremely odd to wipe out all sources I used. Sorry for the bother. I.e. I introduced 7 sources, one of whom is Lilla, cited in paraphrase 6 times, and with a short quote once. Lilla seems to be the objection, but the template has 'disappeared' all the other work. Nishidani ( talk) 07:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Avraham. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Your work here is greatly admired by me. Yo have done a lot for the community and the world. You strictly deserve something more than this which I am currently unable to find! Thank you so much! Varun FEB2003 11:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
You're certainly entitled, if you really are. But I just wanted to say גמר חתימה טובה to you. StevenJ81 ( talk) 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. True that most people say "Bruro" or "Brura", but "Vruro/Vrura" is grammatically the correct form. Debresser ( talk) 09:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Curious, why the oversight? If I remember rightly, it was only the person's title, office phone number, etc. — yes, it's the kind of stuff we routinely replace with {{ redacted}}, but if my memory's correct, it was basically just what you can find at https://www.ssaviation.us/about-us. Nyttend ( talk) 21:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Avraham.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Avraham. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Avraham, can I please ask you to revert the recent edit in the article Bayt Nattif? The recent edit should be reverted for the reason of infringement of "undue weight" ( WP:Due), which in a nut-shell states that since this article in its larger context deals with a village, anything that moves away from the general view by directing our readers' attention to a subsidiary issue of Palestinian-Israeli relations and how others on the outside might view this issue, is, by nature, bringing a distantly related side-issue into the picture; the suggested edit would, in fact, steer us away from the main agenda, namely: describing a village and its history. Any reference to a person's personal feelings resulting over the current political situation in Israel, or else over Arab-Israeli relations, or over events that transpired in the country 68 years ago, with a view to discredit one side, especially as they are seen by outsiders, would be giving undue weight to this article and to its primary theme, viz. a general description of a village that was once settled by Jews, and later by Arabs. (BTW: The suggested edit, can, in fact, be added to a different article that treats specifically on the Palestian-Israeli issue and how it plays out in relations with the outside-world). Davidbena ( talk) 16:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
When one believes there was a violation of Wikipedia policies on an article, and the talk page isn't generating a response, the best step probably is to create a section at WP:ANI and ask for help there. Do that first, so everyone has a chance to see it. You can then raise the issue on various project talk pages and to people open to friendly notices. It isn't unreasonable to raise a point with people whom you know are interested, but we should do everything we can to ensure that the attention provided is fair. I'll look at the article and provide an opinion on the talk page. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Avi, do you have a link to the 2015 discussion where the RFA consensus bar was lowered? I would like to (re)read it. Thanks. Useight's Public Sock ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your well-reasoned, thoughtful closing of the recent ANI discussion based on consensus and policy. What a polarized discussion (and one so lengthly that it seemed unapproachable), but you exemplified the levelheadedness of bureaucrats on Wikipedia. Appable ( talk | contributions) 05:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello,
I saw your recent close on ANI. While I agree with the vast majority of it, I would like to suggest one small change. Instead of deleting all of the bad BLP articles that have not been checked after 1 week, could we perhaps move them to the draft namespace (without leaving a redirect)? Speaking from experience from the Neelix cleanup, the vast majority of all articles are going to be deleted under your close without being looked at. Moving to draft space allows anyone to simply move the good ones back.
Thanks for your consideration, Tazerdadog ( talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for closing my ANI dispute. I have a few questions regarding the three parts.
Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and sensible close to this massive discussion. Is anyone creating the list of articles to be deleted, and advertising it on project pages? Is anyone preparing to undertake the mass deletion? My instinct would be to bend the rules you defined a bit to say that all articles will be deleted from mainspace, but any that were first moved to draft space can be recreated. This is to forestall simple mass removal of huge blocks of articles from the to-be-deleted list. Keeping an article should take a couple of deliberate actions for that article, recorded in the article's history. I would also prefer, if possible, to rate articles in the list and remove lower rated articles faster, higher-rated articles slower. This would allow a bit more focus by reviewers. E.g.
Something like that. I would like to help, but do not think I have access to the tools that would be needed. Comments? Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I just don't know how much effort would be involved. Adding article lengths to the list seems like a simple script, using MusikAnimal's API. That would let us sort by size and check the longest ones. Adding selected categories to the list is probably a bit harder, but would let members of projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics check or at least userfy articles they think worth saving. From the spot checks, a surprising number of articles have had information added since SvG started them. Often the content is by an IP or single-purpose account, often unsourced, and quite often gives the impression that SvG's source supports the new content, although in fact it does not. Presumably much of this added content is by the subjects of the articles. Once in a while an article has been expanded with sourced content – that would be lost. Maybe it is just not worth worrying about. The great majority of the subjects are only marginally notable for a single event, if they are notable at all. The truly notable athletes almost all had articles before SvG got started. Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have processed 50 articles from that list, finding the majority to be presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS, and all but 2 to be free of BLP issues. I would appreciate if the community would quickly sanity check what I am doing, to make sure my reviews are within shouting distance of community norms. I'd also like clarification on one point. Many of the articles describe their subjects as former cyclists (or another sport). This was explicitly called out in the discussion as a BLP issue, but I'm not sure why. Should that phrasing be changed, and if so, to what? Also, @ Lugnuts:, do you want me to start separating out olympic cyclists for your attention, and does anyone else want any special categories made? Tazerdadog ( talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
1 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | ← | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi-Aharon-Lichtenstein.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Avraham, Shalom. I wanted to ask you about the rule of one-revert per day in Wikipedia articles. If I made an initial edit on the West Bank article, and someone came along and moved the edit into a different section, am I permitted within 24-hours to make my first revert to the other editor's change, and restore my edit to its original place? Davidbena ( talk) 15:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Avi. Could you chuck a shufti at this article, Benjamin Murmelstein. I woke to see a notification on my page that I had engaged in a copyright violation, by using sources I always use for these articles. Felt as if I'd been behaving with criminal license. I know how to write stuff up - but I know nothing of these details. It does seem extremely odd to wipe out all sources I used. Sorry for the bother. I.e. I introduced 7 sources, one of whom is Lilla, cited in paraphrase 6 times, and with a short quote once. Lilla seems to be the objection, but the template has 'disappeared' all the other work. Nishidani ( talk) 07:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Avraham. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Your work here is greatly admired by me. Yo have done a lot for the community and the world. You strictly deserve something more than this which I am currently unable to find! Thank you so much! Varun FEB2003 11:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
You're certainly entitled, if you really are. But I just wanted to say גמר חתימה טובה to you. StevenJ81 ( talk) 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. True that most people say "Bruro" or "Brura", but "Vruro/Vrura" is grammatically the correct form. Debresser ( talk) 09:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Curious, why the oversight? If I remember rightly, it was only the person's title, office phone number, etc. — yes, it's the kind of stuff we routinely replace with {{ redacted}}, but if my memory's correct, it was basically just what you can find at https://www.ssaviation.us/about-us. Nyttend ( talk) 21:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Avraham.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Avraham. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Avraham, can I please ask you to revert the recent edit in the article Bayt Nattif? The recent edit should be reverted for the reason of infringement of "undue weight" ( WP:Due), which in a nut-shell states that since this article in its larger context deals with a village, anything that moves away from the general view by directing our readers' attention to a subsidiary issue of Palestinian-Israeli relations and how others on the outside might view this issue, is, by nature, bringing a distantly related side-issue into the picture; the suggested edit would, in fact, steer us away from the main agenda, namely: describing a village and its history. Any reference to a person's personal feelings resulting over the current political situation in Israel, or else over Arab-Israeli relations, or over events that transpired in the country 68 years ago, with a view to discredit one side, especially as they are seen by outsiders, would be giving undue weight to this article and to its primary theme, viz. a general description of a village that was once settled by Jews, and later by Arabs. (BTW: The suggested edit, can, in fact, be added to a different article that treats specifically on the Palestian-Israeli issue and how it plays out in relations with the outside-world). Davidbena ( talk) 16:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
When one believes there was a violation of Wikipedia policies on an article, and the talk page isn't generating a response, the best step probably is to create a section at WP:ANI and ask for help there. Do that first, so everyone has a chance to see it. You can then raise the issue on various project talk pages and to people open to friendly notices. It isn't unreasonable to raise a point with people whom you know are interested, but we should do everything we can to ensure that the attention provided is fair. I'll look at the article and provide an opinion on the talk page. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Avi, do you have a link to the 2015 discussion where the RFA consensus bar was lowered? I would like to (re)read it. Thanks. Useight's Public Sock ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your well-reasoned, thoughtful closing of the recent ANI discussion based on consensus and policy. What a polarized discussion (and one so lengthly that it seemed unapproachable), but you exemplified the levelheadedness of bureaucrats on Wikipedia. Appable ( talk | contributions) 05:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello,
I saw your recent close on ANI. While I agree with the vast majority of it, I would like to suggest one small change. Instead of deleting all of the bad BLP articles that have not been checked after 1 week, could we perhaps move them to the draft namespace (without leaving a redirect)? Speaking from experience from the Neelix cleanup, the vast majority of all articles are going to be deleted under your close without being looked at. Moving to draft space allows anyone to simply move the good ones back.
Thanks for your consideration, Tazerdadog ( talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for closing my ANI dispute. I have a few questions regarding the three parts.
Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ( Talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and sensible close to this massive discussion. Is anyone creating the list of articles to be deleted, and advertising it on project pages? Is anyone preparing to undertake the mass deletion? My instinct would be to bend the rules you defined a bit to say that all articles will be deleted from mainspace, but any that were first moved to draft space can be recreated. This is to forestall simple mass removal of huge blocks of articles from the to-be-deleted list. Keeping an article should take a couple of deliberate actions for that article, recorded in the article's history. I would also prefer, if possible, to rate articles in the list and remove lower rated articles faster, higher-rated articles slower. This would allow a bit more focus by reviewers. E.g.
Something like that. I would like to help, but do not think I have access to the tools that would be needed. Comments? Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I just don't know how much effort would be involved. Adding article lengths to the list seems like a simple script, using MusikAnimal's API. That would let us sort by size and check the longest ones. Adding selected categories to the list is probably a bit harder, but would let members of projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics check or at least userfy articles they think worth saving. From the spot checks, a surprising number of articles have had information added since SvG started them. Often the content is by an IP or single-purpose account, often unsourced, and quite often gives the impression that SvG's source supports the new content, although in fact it does not. Presumably much of this added content is by the subjects of the articles. Once in a while an article has been expanded with sourced content – that would be lost. Maybe it is just not worth worrying about. The great majority of the subjects are only marginally notable for a single event, if they are notable at all. The truly notable athletes almost all had articles before SvG got started. Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have processed 50 articles from that list, finding the majority to be presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS, and all but 2 to be free of BLP issues. I would appreciate if the community would quickly sanity check what I am doing, to make sure my reviews are within shouting distance of community norms. I'd also like clarification on one point. Many of the articles describe their subjects as former cyclists (or another sport). This was explicitly called out in the discussion as a BLP issue, but I'm not sure why. Should that phrasing be changed, and if so, to what? Also, @ Lugnuts:, do you want me to start separating out olympic cyclists for your attention, and does anyone else want any special categories made? Tazerdadog ( talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)