![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
no archives yet ( create) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thank you for closing the RfC on People's Mujahedin of Iran. I suspect it wasn't easy to go through all the material, so I just wanted to show my appreciation for your thorough evaluation. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, if you are able to view a Newspapers.com clipping, you should clip it and post it as open access. Considering that you are quoting those bombshell allegations against President Johnson and Congressmen keeping mistresses in their hideaways, you can assume that most readers would want to see the source. I clipped and formatted the Newspapers.com reference for you. Please do this in future. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for closing the RFC.
Why is “longstanding usage” privileged, and which guideline does this follow? The guidelines and normal practice afford primacy to the main article title, Kyiv, as is stated, for example, in MOS:CAPS#Place names, “In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then . . .” (my emphasis). Historical usage is an exception.
And your comment about this being “consistent with the close of a related RfC” seems backwards. That other RFC is recommending an exception to the normal usage of the main-article title. Since the RFC showed no consensus favouring the exception, then the normal rule applies. Any privilege of “longstanding usage” was overturned by the consensus move to Kyiv, which led directly to that RFC and this one.
(Additionally, the article in question arguably does not meet the criteria of the other RFC, as it is in its terms neither an “unambiguously historical” nor “an edge case” since its scope explicitly includes the period after both 1991 and 1995, as stated in the introduction. It is a survey article that includes previous history to the present, like, e.g., History of Kyiv) — Michael Z. 03:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for taking the time to go through the RfC and closing it here. You said that only "three are opposed" to the proposal, but I count 6: Mhhossein, [1] Pahlevun, [2] Ali Ahwazi [3], Jushyosaha604, [4] Sa.vakilian, [5] and myself [6] [7].
Secondly, I feel the RfC was closed in the middle of a discussion (even though I know it was well past the 30 days). For example, on 27 November I argued that the original proposal's wording was contrary to MOS:WEASEL. I was hoping to get some responses to that, yet you closed the RfC on November 29. Would you please re-open the RfC and let that discussion conclude? VR talk 11:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
consensus is not a vote, which is why I think that the lack of votes in the past five days should not be the factor for determining whether the RfC had concluded. I'm sure you'll agree that there was still active discussion (between four users) at the time of close - why not wait for that discussion to conclude before closing? Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE, right? Secondly, you mentioned
but a means of incorporating all legitimate concerns. I did raise concerns about accuracy of the text proposed and there seems to have been no response.
"this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here)."In that RfC I proposed a summary of the overwhelming details all repeating the same redundant thing, and per WP:DUE, we have kept the major points and reduced redundant details. On your other point, VR's proposal was not undermined; it was taken into consideration and it did not received consensus. That it was "at odd with the spirit of Wikipedia policy" is nonsense. Also, your continued baseless accusations of "pro-MEK" users and "socks" is WP:BATTLEGROUND. You yourself asked for this RfC to be closed by an experienced admin; and that's just what happened here. Move on. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 07:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. This was an improper response. Even if they had provided RS, it would have been an improper use of the edit request facility, which is only for uncontroversial changes or changes that already have consensus. It's not a substitute for the "New section" link at the top of the article's talk page. In my view it's important to be clear on this point. I've added my own "not done" there. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
On 8 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hideaway (U.S. Senate), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some members of the United States Congress are assigned secret offices called hideaways whose locations may be unknown even to their own staff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hideaway (U.S. Senate). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Hideaway (U.S. Senate)), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Chetsford,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Could you weigh in there if you have a chance? Thanks. Marquardtika ( talk) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Can you maybe tell me what the persistent vandalism is that you refer to here? I have not seen it. Thanks. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D ( talk) 03:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
no archives yet ( create) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thank you for closing the RfC on People's Mujahedin of Iran. I suspect it wasn't easy to go through all the material, so I just wanted to show my appreciation for your thorough evaluation. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, if you are able to view a Newspapers.com clipping, you should clip it and post it as open access. Considering that you are quoting those bombshell allegations against President Johnson and Congressmen keeping mistresses in their hideaways, you can assume that most readers would want to see the source. I clipped and formatted the Newspapers.com reference for you. Please do this in future. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for closing the RFC.
Why is “longstanding usage” privileged, and which guideline does this follow? The guidelines and normal practice afford primacy to the main article title, Kyiv, as is stated, for example, in MOS:CAPS#Place names, “In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then . . .” (my emphasis). Historical usage is an exception.
And your comment about this being “consistent with the close of a related RfC” seems backwards. That other RFC is recommending an exception to the normal usage of the main-article title. Since the RFC showed no consensus favouring the exception, then the normal rule applies. Any privilege of “longstanding usage” was overturned by the consensus move to Kyiv, which led directly to that RFC and this one.
(Additionally, the article in question arguably does not meet the criteria of the other RFC, as it is in its terms neither an “unambiguously historical” nor “an edge case” since its scope explicitly includes the period after both 1991 and 1995, as stated in the introduction. It is a survey article that includes previous history to the present, like, e.g., History of Kyiv) — Michael Z. 03:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for taking the time to go through the RfC and closing it here. You said that only "three are opposed" to the proposal, but I count 6: Mhhossein, [1] Pahlevun, [2] Ali Ahwazi [3], Jushyosaha604, [4] Sa.vakilian, [5] and myself [6] [7].
Secondly, I feel the RfC was closed in the middle of a discussion (even though I know it was well past the 30 days). For example, on 27 November I argued that the original proposal's wording was contrary to MOS:WEASEL. I was hoping to get some responses to that, yet you closed the RfC on November 29. Would you please re-open the RfC and let that discussion conclude? VR talk 11:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
consensus is not a vote, which is why I think that the lack of votes in the past five days should not be the factor for determining whether the RfC had concluded. I'm sure you'll agree that there was still active discussion (between four users) at the time of close - why not wait for that discussion to conclude before closing? Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE, right? Secondly, you mentioned
but a means of incorporating all legitimate concerns. I did raise concerns about accuracy of the text proposed and there seems to have been no response.
"this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here)."In that RfC I proposed a summary of the overwhelming details all repeating the same redundant thing, and per WP:DUE, we have kept the major points and reduced redundant details. On your other point, VR's proposal was not undermined; it was taken into consideration and it did not received consensus. That it was "at odd with the spirit of Wikipedia policy" is nonsense. Also, your continued baseless accusations of "pro-MEK" users and "socks" is WP:BATTLEGROUND. You yourself asked for this RfC to be closed by an experienced admin; and that's just what happened here. Move on. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 07:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. This was an improper response. Even if they had provided RS, it would have been an improper use of the edit request facility, which is only for uncontroversial changes or changes that already have consensus. It's not a substitute for the "New section" link at the top of the article's talk page. In my view it's important to be clear on this point. I've added my own "not done" there. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
On 8 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hideaway (U.S. Senate), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some members of the United States Congress are assigned secret offices called hideaways whose locations may be unknown even to their own staff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hideaway (U.S. Senate). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Hideaway (U.S. Senate)), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Chetsford,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Could you weigh in there if you have a chance? Thanks. Marquardtika ( talk) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Can you maybe tell me what the persistent vandalism is that you refer to here? I have not seen it. Thanks. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D ( talk) 03:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |