![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I'm sure it's probably an oversight by the poster that they didn't see the sign saying not to post, but could you remove this, added today by a non-party to earlier party comments. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 13:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I was recently warned "Discretionary Sanctions" I might be subject to. The user who warned me confessed he have not reviewed yet, but decided to warn us both about tendentious editing. I am very sure I have not made anything wrong. I went the appropiate noticeboards to find resolution. Always pinged the other editor involved. After the outcome I have edited the conflicting information accordingly, this time removing the sensitive unsourced information. After two months, the other editor returned with rage and mentioned me. I expressed my surprise of being again mentioned about a closed topic and recalled the noticeboards that have helped to resolve the matter. After that, the user warned me. And yet have not review the case.
This warning in my talk can be misleading. Any casual read can form itself the idea of conflicting edits, and this is not the case. I would like him to remove the warning and apologize. It is possible to ask him to do so? -- Osplace 15:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi L235--how is it going? Hey, I was wondering if you knew Freeda Brook from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa? She is teaching a Library Juice Academy class on Wikipedia: http://libraryjuiceacademy.com/115-wikipedia.php Also, I met someone at a Library Technology conference last week from South Dakota who would like to get Wikipedia started there. It made me think about upper Midwest / Great Plains remote collaboration, for how those Wikipedians who may be "isolated" may be able to work together remotely. Let me know if you are interested in exploring that. RachelWex ( talk)
The C of E has made some edits to the article, and he's requesting a comment for you regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
![]() ![]()
| ||
To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
On 1 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the United States once sued 43 gallons of whiskey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Alex Shih ( talk) 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems motion 1 is going to pass as it has reached required support of 6. What is next? Will you close or ping Arbcom members who are yet to vote? — MapSGV ( talk) 12:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. Re: indicating "coeducational" in the lead of McGill University and responding to you: We have had more than enough discussion (see entire edit history) so we would like to go to requests for comment, third opinions to obtain consensus. Since I need to present the points I raised and have never gone for any consensus/third opinion before, please create proper venue and advise on how to proceed. Thanks, Kevin. Jacknpoy ( talk) 02:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
On 12 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lafler v. Cooper, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when dissenting from the US Supreme Court decision in Lafler v. Cooper, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Court had elevated "plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lafler v. Cooper. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Lafler v. Cooper), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Vanamonde ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please remove rollback from my account. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to know what you think I should do. A statement such as X has a long history of Y can never be proved by a diff or two. That's why I referred Arbcom to previous cases that provide a great deal of documentation, far more than any editor could present in a single comment. My introduction explicitly and categorically establishes that this is not a personal comment about Anythingyouwant, with whom I interact perfectly well. Neither of us has ever even insulted, let alone attacked the other as far as I can recall. I'd also point out that you have left undisturbed a posting from MastCell who refers to the same evidence as I but includes the links instead of just stating the locations of the corroborating evidence without hyperlinks. You've also left a variety of personal remarks by other editors that in some cases are unsupported or in some cases are corroborated by a single instance linked but in no way corroborated as to the conclusions stated in the posts. If you're telling me that I need to furnish hyperlinks to the previous AE threads and Arbcom decisions relating to Anythingyouwant, I can do that. Of course you or one of your fellow clerks could also have done that without nearly the effort that's been expended on this matter so far. I'm not going to try to re-write the post and again be accused of violating site policy without knowing exactly what you think is required. Needless to say, I consider your action petty bullying and note again for your consideration that non of the dozens of Admins who have read my similar messages about Anythingyouwant has ever misinterpreted them as Personal Attacks. I don't do personal attacks, and in my opinion it is you who are engaged in disparagement and undue application of your clerk's role without any benefit to this case or any of its participants.
So, will adding hyperlinks of the AE and Arbcom threads satisfy your requirement? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
diehard anti-abortion activists such as Anythingyouwant...
his many and persistent misdeeds on American Politics...
Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer, skirting penumbra of policy and the limit of the law on WP. His lack of contributions outside his narrow area of interest and his years-long disruption argue for a simple ban from WP.and so on) do not actually follow from the formal discussion. Can you link to the actual section of the discussion that would indicate that the user is a "diehard anti-abortion activist[]" or "is a poster child for NOTHERE editing"? Is there some analysis you would like to share?
Hey, Kevin. About the German war effort RFAR? Opabinia Regalis made it 8 accept yesterday, but the "opinion on hearing this matter" thing still says 7. Thought I'd mention it. All active arbs except Brad have accepted. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC).
On 8 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sessions v. Dimaya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Sessions v. Dimaya, Trump-appointed US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined a 5–4 vote against the Trump administration? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sessions v. Dimaya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Sessions v. Dimaya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Gatoclass ( talk) 12:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion was still ongoing at the ARCA you recently archived. Please revert so discussion can continue. user:Laser brain had just brought up some interesting points. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but what does the expiration date mean? I mean, what does it do? Will the template disappear in a puff of smoke on 10 September? (BTW I see NeilN already put an expiry date on the template in the edit notice.) Bishonen | talk 20:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC).
Thank you Kevin. That was a complete surprise and something that really made my day. I didn't really think anyone noticed but it makes me want to do more. I took quite a few weeks off from doing maintenance tasks, at least on enwiki, and even longer on writing articles. Your nomination makes me want to dive right back into all that. I think I'll take this upcoming long weekend to finally finish my draft that has been sitting in unfinished purgatory for months now. Gotta live up to the nomination
. Thank you again! --
Majora (
talk)
21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
Hello L235, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following:
84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following:
95.235.116.126 (see:
Loayur,
Duelai,
Ddgfs),
87.17.102.163 (see:
Sasalikasty),
193.204.194.210 (see:
Dyukpore),
79.30.8.179 (see:
Vufroled),
5.90.255.50 (see:
Ksyru),
79.49.65.250 (see:
Fruial,
Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-)
198.46.84.16 (
talk)
16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
G'day L235. I reckon Sturmvogel_66's post on the evidence talk page should have been on the evidence page? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You asked me to message you on the IRC chat... so here I am. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk| contribs) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello L235, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Lafler v. Cooper you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Barkeep49 --
Barkeep49 (
talk)
15:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
supreme court
Thank you for quality articles around legal cases, such as Lafler v. Cooper, Blueford v. Arkansas and United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, for reviewing articles for creation, arbcom clerk services and kittens, for "I'm so glad I could help", - Kevin, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
spirale of justice |
The article
Lafler v. Cooper you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Lafler v. Cooper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Barkeep49 --
Barkeep49 (
talk)
22:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Email not needed, if someone wants to chase under this its not that beany. — xaosflux Talk 23:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Great nom. Thank you. ― Buster7 ☎ 04:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
For full disclosure - MelanieN asked me about nominating and I turned her down. I'll have a think about what I wrote at the RfA but I think you'll probably pass anyway so I wouldn't worry about it. I will say that I don't know why people can churn out good content like yourself and then get excited about stuff like SPI, but guess I have odd opinions at times. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
|
Good luck with your Request for |
I'm sure you're going to do fine :-) Don't spend the week constantly watching the RfA.. - TNT 💖 19:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC) |
It's my first time participating in a vote for someone's adminship. I never had any contact with you before but after looking at your edits, I know that you will might as well be an administrator. Good luck out there mate. CommanderOzEvolved ( talk) ( contribs) 06:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
You're going to break records. Have a bunny! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, good to see your RfA's running smoothly, congrats on the WP:200 and an early congrats on your successful RfA, I'm glad to have you on the team. But, I was wondering what the SPI protocol is when one sockmaster is determined to be a sock itself (assuming both have an SPI already). Are we supposed to merge the SPIs, leave them separate, or does it not matter? Swarm ♠ 02:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to be among THE FIRST to say it. Call it intuition or a gut feeling - I just knew. Ok, so now that you're loaded for bear, whenever you see
FBDB after one of my comments, that means whatever I may have said is not a blockable offense. 😂 😉
Atsme
📞
📧
03:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC) strike & add-on dated 22:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RFA! In a self-proclaimed RFA tradition, allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from KrakatoaKatie after my RFA passed – two years ago: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL. |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Congratulations on your successful RfA! We all knew you deserved the mop! Semi Hypercube ✎ 15:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC) |
Sorry to start two sections in a row, but– User:Maxim added the edit filter manager user right to you when making you a sysop. Did you also ask for that? If not, do you want it? I'm a bit confused by now, it could have been an error. Semi Hypercube ✎ 15:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This came in the mail for you. I don't know if you want to keep it pristine in the box or display it in the corner. {{ Administrator topicon}} Natureium ( talk) 21:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
On 4 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Napue v. Illinois, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1959, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for a prosecutor to knowingly use false testimony, even if the testimony does not directly relate to the defendant's guilt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Napue v. Illinois. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Napue v. Illinois), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind setting up the shortcut to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort case? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What did they expect to achieve? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding comments left on Brenae Wafto's talk: I did just watch ELon Musk state that his description on Wikipedia should be changed from "magnate" to "magnet" on Joe Rogan's podcast. An edit to Elon Musk stating that he is a self-described or self-professed 'business magnet' would seem to be appropriate, and punishing Brenae Wafto may be inappropriate. DanD ( talk) 05:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer in the edit summary. Will remove the previous tag and replace with something more appropriate. Somehow didn't register with me that an attack page and being completely made up are mutually exclusive. {{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
23:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
23:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, firstly, belated congratulations on your RfA. I hope your tenure provides you satisfying and knowledgeable experiences and you have fun administrating.
That said, let me also take this opportunity to communicate my apologies to what happened in your RfA due to me. As I wrote recently in one of my emails to a few editors, the community is absolutely right in complaining about the posting that I did; and it's a wonder I did not get sanctioned immediately, or thereafter, given that the post went primly against our outing policy. I would not be wrong in thanking you for literally saving my you-know-what, by giving supportive statements through the RfA, and now I'm told, in private too. I've made a few mistakes in my editing tenure – this is absolutely at the top of the chart amongst those, and the reason I'm here to offer my apologies.
If there's anything I can do to cut this chapter to a quick close (beer, a pro-bono song performance to add...) just name it :) I'm sure we'll interact in the future, and I look forward to enjoying working with you. Most warmly, Lourdes 16:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
[3] E Eng 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For doing such a spectacular job dealing with the vast quanity of users who come across AIV and SPI - I'm so happy to say I supported you for adminship! Also a very, very late congrats on your RfA.
![]() |
Hi, there! I’ve seen you block User:Poop dodo for a period of 31 hours. Good effort on your part, but I really think that user has violated the username policy as an impersonation of and attack against User:Gogo Dodo and should be indef’d. My report at WP:UAA was unsuccessful and removed right away. Storm Content 19:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Could you do me a favour? Would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy, as I have just noticed that it is malformed; the incorrectly done formatting (such as failing to specify parameters in {{ Casenav}}) in other pages of this case are rather unimportant, but the statements from the community ( [4]) was not copied by Kharkiv07, as they only copied the statements from involved parties I suppose. Was this done correctly? If not, how was this not noticed at the time? I have doubts because the very next case was opened in the format that I understand to be correct. This probably should be corrected as issues from this case have been re-surfacing recently for the past few months, and right now the point of reference is rather incomplete. If you have time to address this, that would be amazing. Or if this old case page do need to be cleaned up, maybe Cameron11598 can take a shot at it to see if there are any other missing parts? Cheers, Alex Shih ( talk) 09:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
In response to my reblock comment, thanks. Much appreciated. :) Storm Content 15:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC) |
Hey, folks. Reminder: Wednesday evening at 6 is the Bay Area WikiSalon series.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Arbitration clerk.
Hhkohh (
talk)
10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Would you have a moment to look at the edits of User talk:68.192.236.111? I see you've blocked this editor recently. Some odd template stuff going on. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi L235, I've just this minute CSD-tagged the RFA page although not sure if it the correct one, As far as I know we don't accept RFAs by brand new users, Anyway thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 03:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Napue v. Illinois you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
White whirlwind --
White whirlwind (
talk)
00:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Greetings,
I recall seeing you on WP:RX processing requests relating to Stanford Libraries. Does that mean you have access to [5], [6], [7] and [8]? Unfortunately Nevado Sajama has a needle-in-haystack quality that makes it nigh impossible to find decent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
—— SerialNumber 54129 09:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Diligent Librarian Barnstar | |
For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) I appreciate you going to the trouble. —— SerialNumber 54129 10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Kevin. Thanks for nominating me on 'Editor of the Week'. You made my day bro. - Gazal world ( talk) 17:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I came across the article Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management and saw there was a previous editor, User:Santanu99, and a sockpuppet of theirs, User:Tata Medical Center, that were recently blocked. Another editor, User:Ajit Doval, made two edits on the 27th, [9], changing to the image uploaded by Santanu99 and using the exact same coding for the reference for the director they all added. I believe this is another sockpuppet, so I wanted to let you know and if you agreed then action can be taken. Aspects ( talk) 00:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
Hi mate just wondering how bad is vandalism on Wikipedia and also why do bots run this not actual people many thanks TJY P.S Im new to this and I don't know if this is the right area to do this TJY1 ( talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I'm sure it's probably an oversight by the poster that they didn't see the sign saying not to post, but could you remove this, added today by a non-party to earlier party comments. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 13:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I was recently warned "Discretionary Sanctions" I might be subject to. The user who warned me confessed he have not reviewed yet, but decided to warn us both about tendentious editing. I am very sure I have not made anything wrong. I went the appropiate noticeboards to find resolution. Always pinged the other editor involved. After the outcome I have edited the conflicting information accordingly, this time removing the sensitive unsourced information. After two months, the other editor returned with rage and mentioned me. I expressed my surprise of being again mentioned about a closed topic and recalled the noticeboards that have helped to resolve the matter. After that, the user warned me. And yet have not review the case.
This warning in my talk can be misleading. Any casual read can form itself the idea of conflicting edits, and this is not the case. I would like him to remove the warning and apologize. It is possible to ask him to do so? -- Osplace 15:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi L235--how is it going? Hey, I was wondering if you knew Freeda Brook from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa? She is teaching a Library Juice Academy class on Wikipedia: http://libraryjuiceacademy.com/115-wikipedia.php Also, I met someone at a Library Technology conference last week from South Dakota who would like to get Wikipedia started there. It made me think about upper Midwest / Great Plains remote collaboration, for how those Wikipedians who may be "isolated" may be able to work together remotely. Let me know if you are interested in exploring that. RachelWex ( talk)
The C of E has made some edits to the article, and he's requesting a comment for you regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
![]() ![]()
| ||
To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
On 1 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the United States once sued 43 gallons of whiskey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Alex Shih ( talk) 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems motion 1 is going to pass as it has reached required support of 6. What is next? Will you close or ping Arbcom members who are yet to vote? — MapSGV ( talk) 12:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. Re: indicating "coeducational" in the lead of McGill University and responding to you: We have had more than enough discussion (see entire edit history) so we would like to go to requests for comment, third opinions to obtain consensus. Since I need to present the points I raised and have never gone for any consensus/third opinion before, please create proper venue and advise on how to proceed. Thanks, Kevin. Jacknpoy ( talk) 02:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
On 12 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lafler v. Cooper, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when dissenting from the US Supreme Court decision in Lafler v. Cooper, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Court had elevated "plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lafler v. Cooper. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Lafler v. Cooper), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Vanamonde ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please remove rollback from my account. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to know what you think I should do. A statement such as X has a long history of Y can never be proved by a diff or two. That's why I referred Arbcom to previous cases that provide a great deal of documentation, far more than any editor could present in a single comment. My introduction explicitly and categorically establishes that this is not a personal comment about Anythingyouwant, with whom I interact perfectly well. Neither of us has ever even insulted, let alone attacked the other as far as I can recall. I'd also point out that you have left undisturbed a posting from MastCell who refers to the same evidence as I but includes the links instead of just stating the locations of the corroborating evidence without hyperlinks. You've also left a variety of personal remarks by other editors that in some cases are unsupported or in some cases are corroborated by a single instance linked but in no way corroborated as to the conclusions stated in the posts. If you're telling me that I need to furnish hyperlinks to the previous AE threads and Arbcom decisions relating to Anythingyouwant, I can do that. Of course you or one of your fellow clerks could also have done that without nearly the effort that's been expended on this matter so far. I'm not going to try to re-write the post and again be accused of violating site policy without knowing exactly what you think is required. Needless to say, I consider your action petty bullying and note again for your consideration that non of the dozens of Admins who have read my similar messages about Anythingyouwant has ever misinterpreted them as Personal Attacks. I don't do personal attacks, and in my opinion it is you who are engaged in disparagement and undue application of your clerk's role without any benefit to this case or any of its participants.
So, will adding hyperlinks of the AE and Arbcom threads satisfy your requirement? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
diehard anti-abortion activists such as Anythingyouwant...
his many and persistent misdeeds on American Politics...
Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer, skirting penumbra of policy and the limit of the law on WP. His lack of contributions outside his narrow area of interest and his years-long disruption argue for a simple ban from WP.and so on) do not actually follow from the formal discussion. Can you link to the actual section of the discussion that would indicate that the user is a "diehard anti-abortion activist[]" or "is a poster child for NOTHERE editing"? Is there some analysis you would like to share?
Hey, Kevin. About the German war effort RFAR? Opabinia Regalis made it 8 accept yesterday, but the "opinion on hearing this matter" thing still says 7. Thought I'd mention it. All active arbs except Brad have accepted. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC).
On 8 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sessions v. Dimaya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Sessions v. Dimaya, Trump-appointed US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined a 5–4 vote against the Trump administration? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sessions v. Dimaya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Sessions v. Dimaya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Gatoclass ( talk) 12:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion was still ongoing at the ARCA you recently archived. Please revert so discussion can continue. user:Laser brain had just brought up some interesting points. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but what does the expiration date mean? I mean, what does it do? Will the template disappear in a puff of smoke on 10 September? (BTW I see NeilN already put an expiry date on the template in the edit notice.) Bishonen | talk 20:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC).
Thank you Kevin. That was a complete surprise and something that really made my day. I didn't really think anyone noticed but it makes me want to do more. I took quite a few weeks off from doing maintenance tasks, at least on enwiki, and even longer on writing articles. Your nomination makes me want to dive right back into all that. I think I'll take this upcoming long weekend to finally finish my draft that has been sitting in unfinished purgatory for months now. Gotta live up to the nomination
. Thank you again! --
Majora (
talk)
21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
Hello L235, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following:
84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following:
95.235.116.126 (see:
Loayur,
Duelai,
Ddgfs),
87.17.102.163 (see:
Sasalikasty),
193.204.194.210 (see:
Dyukpore),
79.30.8.179 (see:
Vufroled),
5.90.255.50 (see:
Ksyru),
79.49.65.250 (see:
Fruial,
Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-)
198.46.84.16 (
talk)
16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
G'day L235. I reckon Sturmvogel_66's post on the evidence talk page should have been on the evidence page? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You asked me to message you on the IRC chat... so here I am. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk| contribs) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello L235, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Lafler v. Cooper you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Barkeep49 --
Barkeep49 (
talk)
15:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
supreme court
Thank you for quality articles around legal cases, such as Lafler v. Cooper, Blueford v. Arkansas and United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, for reviewing articles for creation, arbcom clerk services and kittens, for "I'm so glad I could help", - Kevin, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
spirale of justice |
The article
Lafler v. Cooper you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Lafler v. Cooper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Barkeep49 --
Barkeep49 (
talk)
22:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Email not needed, if someone wants to chase under this its not that beany. — xaosflux Talk 23:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Great nom. Thank you. ― Buster7 ☎ 04:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
For full disclosure - MelanieN asked me about nominating and I turned her down. I'll have a think about what I wrote at the RfA but I think you'll probably pass anyway so I wouldn't worry about it. I will say that I don't know why people can churn out good content like yourself and then get excited about stuff like SPI, but guess I have odd opinions at times. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
|
Good luck with your Request for |
I'm sure you're going to do fine :-) Don't spend the week constantly watching the RfA.. - TNT 💖 19:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC) |
It's my first time participating in a vote for someone's adminship. I never had any contact with you before but after looking at your edits, I know that you will might as well be an administrator. Good luck out there mate. CommanderOzEvolved ( talk) ( contribs) 06:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
You're going to break records. Have a bunny! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, good to see your RfA's running smoothly, congrats on the WP:200 and an early congrats on your successful RfA, I'm glad to have you on the team. But, I was wondering what the SPI protocol is when one sockmaster is determined to be a sock itself (assuming both have an SPI already). Are we supposed to merge the SPIs, leave them separate, or does it not matter? Swarm ♠ 02:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to be among THE FIRST to say it. Call it intuition or a gut feeling - I just knew. Ok, so now that you're loaded for bear, whenever you see
FBDB after one of my comments, that means whatever I may have said is not a blockable offense. 😂 😉
Atsme
📞
📧
03:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC) strike & add-on dated 22:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RFA! In a self-proclaimed RFA tradition, allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from KrakatoaKatie after my RFA passed – two years ago: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL. |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Congratulations on your successful RfA! We all knew you deserved the mop! Semi Hypercube ✎ 15:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC) |
Sorry to start two sections in a row, but– User:Maxim added the edit filter manager user right to you when making you a sysop. Did you also ask for that? If not, do you want it? I'm a bit confused by now, it could have been an error. Semi Hypercube ✎ 15:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This came in the mail for you. I don't know if you want to keep it pristine in the box or display it in the corner. {{ Administrator topicon}} Natureium ( talk) 21:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
On 4 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Napue v. Illinois, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1959, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for a prosecutor to knowingly use false testimony, even if the testimony does not directly relate to the defendant's guilt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Napue v. Illinois. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Napue v. Illinois), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind setting up the shortcut to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort case? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What did they expect to achieve? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding comments left on Brenae Wafto's talk: I did just watch ELon Musk state that his description on Wikipedia should be changed from "magnate" to "magnet" on Joe Rogan's podcast. An edit to Elon Musk stating that he is a self-described or self-professed 'business magnet' would seem to be appropriate, and punishing Brenae Wafto may be inappropriate. DanD ( talk) 05:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer in the edit summary. Will remove the previous tag and replace with something more appropriate. Somehow didn't register with me that an attack page and being completely made up are mutually exclusive. {{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
23:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
23:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, firstly, belated congratulations on your RfA. I hope your tenure provides you satisfying and knowledgeable experiences and you have fun administrating.
That said, let me also take this opportunity to communicate my apologies to what happened in your RfA due to me. As I wrote recently in one of my emails to a few editors, the community is absolutely right in complaining about the posting that I did; and it's a wonder I did not get sanctioned immediately, or thereafter, given that the post went primly against our outing policy. I would not be wrong in thanking you for literally saving my you-know-what, by giving supportive statements through the RfA, and now I'm told, in private too. I've made a few mistakes in my editing tenure – this is absolutely at the top of the chart amongst those, and the reason I'm here to offer my apologies.
If there's anything I can do to cut this chapter to a quick close (beer, a pro-bono song performance to add...) just name it :) I'm sure we'll interact in the future, and I look forward to enjoying working with you. Most warmly, Lourdes 16:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
[3] E Eng 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For doing such a spectacular job dealing with the vast quanity of users who come across AIV and SPI - I'm so happy to say I supported you for adminship! Also a very, very late congrats on your RfA.
![]() |
Hi, there! I’ve seen you block User:Poop dodo for a period of 31 hours. Good effort on your part, but I really think that user has violated the username policy as an impersonation of and attack against User:Gogo Dodo and should be indef’d. My report at WP:UAA was unsuccessful and removed right away. Storm Content 19:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Could you do me a favour? Would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy, as I have just noticed that it is malformed; the incorrectly done formatting (such as failing to specify parameters in {{ Casenav}}) in other pages of this case are rather unimportant, but the statements from the community ( [4]) was not copied by Kharkiv07, as they only copied the statements from involved parties I suppose. Was this done correctly? If not, how was this not noticed at the time? I have doubts because the very next case was opened in the format that I understand to be correct. This probably should be corrected as issues from this case have been re-surfacing recently for the past few months, and right now the point of reference is rather incomplete. If you have time to address this, that would be amazing. Or if this old case page do need to be cleaned up, maybe Cameron11598 can take a shot at it to see if there are any other missing parts? Cheers, Alex Shih ( talk) 09:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
In response to my reblock comment, thanks. Much appreciated. :) Storm Content 15:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC) |
Hey, folks. Reminder: Wednesday evening at 6 is the Bay Area WikiSalon series.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Arbitration clerk.
Hhkohh (
talk)
10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Would you have a moment to look at the edits of User talk:68.192.236.111? I see you've blocked this editor recently. Some odd template stuff going on. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi L235, I've just this minute CSD-tagged the RFA page although not sure if it the correct one, As far as I know we don't accept RFAs by brand new users, Anyway thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 03:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Napue v. Illinois you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
White whirlwind --
White whirlwind (
talk)
00:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Greetings,
I recall seeing you on WP:RX processing requests relating to Stanford Libraries. Does that mean you have access to [5], [6], [7] and [8]? Unfortunately Nevado Sajama has a needle-in-haystack quality that makes it nigh impossible to find decent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
—— SerialNumber 54129 09:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Diligent Librarian Barnstar | |
For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) I appreciate you going to the trouble. —— SerialNumber 54129 10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Kevin. Thanks for nominating me on 'Editor of the Week'. You made my day bro. - Gazal world ( talk) 17:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I came across the article Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management and saw there was a previous editor, User:Santanu99, and a sockpuppet of theirs, User:Tata Medical Center, that were recently blocked. Another editor, User:Ajit Doval, made two edits on the 27th, [9], changing to the image uploaded by Santanu99 and using the exact same coding for the reference for the director they all added. I believe this is another sockpuppet, so I wanted to let you know and if you agreed then action can be taken. Aspects ( talk) 00:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
Hi mate just wondering how bad is vandalism on Wikipedia and also why do bots run this not actual people many thanks TJY P.S Im new to this and I don't know if this is the right area to do this TJY1 ( talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)