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.
Can you take a look at
Draft:Cline, Oklahoma? I tagged these images as source missing on Commons. A source was added but I am not sure it will be enough - I asked at Commons and one of the admins there is also unsure. The photographer and years are unknown, and it is a self-created photo of an older photo published in a book from 1971. There is a small bit of caption text in one of the photos. Pinging the article creator also
Amazingaswron.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
21:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@
SeraphWiki: difficult - US copyright status depends on publication date in the first instance and these photos maybe public domain if the book A History of Beaver County, Vol. 2 was a) the first publication of the images and b) the book was published without a copyright notice. If the history book wasn't the first place of publication then we would need to know when and in what they were first published to try and wok out the copyright status. The CC licences are almost certainly wrong unless Amazingaswron can explain how the copyright holder has granted such a licence.
Nthep (
talk)
22:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to find out who took the photos because they do not credit anyone in the book, I own the book by the way, if you want me to try to look around in it I can figure out maybe if they did credit them, but no guarantees. The book is really old now and the photos were taken in the 1800's its almost impossible to figure out who took them by now. Its possible that they are public domain now and free use is involved, but also not guaranteeing that as well. I could credit to each individual publisher or I can go to Beaver, OK and ask questions myself and ask if it is alright.- Amazingaswron — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Amazingaswron: I doubt we will get to the bottom of this entirely. I suspect the photos were previously unpublished, they are of the type that sit in archives for years gathering dust. So, first question does the book contain a copyright notice? Just one will cover the entire book including all the images included in it. If it doesn't great, if not then if you want to do the research a chat with the Beaver County History Society to see what they know about the provenance of the images. Sadly US law only gives public domain status to unpublished images over 120 years old.
Nthep (
talk)
22:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There is indeed a copyright notice but if I contact the society and get permission we can probably use the photos. But we arent using the information for commercial purposes couldnt we source it to all who was involved that put together the book, or would us law prevent that still. -Amazingaswron
@
Amazingaswron: It's a basic premise of the
image use policy that content can be reused commercially even though Wikipedia isn't making commercial use of the images. The Society can grant permission but they would have to explain how they hold the copyright on the images to be able to give any permission. They might be able to tell you though if the images had veen been pubished previously.
Nthep (
talk)
23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well i do know those images wers sent in from different families, my family actually owns one of the pictures i uploaded, so i dont think they can copyright it - amazingaswron — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
00:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well that stuffs things up. When you say you own one of the photos, is this a case of inheriting the copyright from the known photographer or just a copy (even the only copy) of the print came into your family's possession? If it's the former then you can licence it. If it's the latter then without evidence of prior publication copyright is going to last until 2066 (95 years from date of first publication).
Nthep (
talk)
14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well you see its not a original copy, I just know my great-grandmother took it and in 1973 my grandmother gave the photo to the society to use it, but there's no copyright at all on the photo, I thought privately taken photos could not be copyrighted unless for commercial use. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
So there is a known photographer for one of the photos, that's good news. The image description for that image needs to be updated to include the name of the creator i.e. your g-grandmother, and on behalf of the heirs you can licence it (assuming you all agree) using the template {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} A photo of this age is highly unlikely to have been copyrighted at the time of creation as under the then existent US copyright laws, the copyright would need to be formally registered. Hence as an unregistered work it didn't attain any copyright until it was published in 1971 in the book by the society. Nowadays the situation is different and the US is much more in line with other countries where copyright duration is based on death of the creator plus 70 years.
Nthep (
talk)
23:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The publishers of the book cannot claim copyright on an item you own or have inherited the copyright on, unless at the time there was a written agreement to assign the copyright to the publisher. It's unfortunate that you have lost the original as it becomes difficult to substantiate your claim of ownership but it doesn't change the basic principles.
Nthep (
talk)
17:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
So what conclusion have we made about this, should we just get rid of the photos or keep them, they are sourced to the book so I mean I don't know if they would really care. I really want to get this Cline wiki page up quick so whats your thoughts on what we should do in this situation — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
22:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of the one you own, the only conclusion I can come to is that they are all still in copyright until 2066. Annoying but that's the law. Whether the Historical Society care or not isn't relevant. Lack of images doesn't stop an article moving forward so concentrate on the prose. Thanks for trying though.
Nthep (
talk)
12:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Nthep! You've done loads of RD1 revdeletions at my request, for which many, many thanks. I'm at a loss to understand why you declined this one. Did you happen to look at the talk-page, where the extent of the problem is explained in detail? It has nothing whatsoever to do with a nineteenth-century funerary inscription, but concerns blatant copy-pasting from a modern non-free web source. Could you take another look? Thanks,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is blanked other than the outcome of the deletion discussion and no I didn't look at the history as there was no indication of any need to see a prior discussion. Now I've seen that discussion it is an eligible case (and the talk page).
Nthep (
talk)
23:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 26
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
#1Lib1Ref
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
Welcome to the one hundredth and eighteenth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 13,866 last month to 14,269 on 30 January 2018). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 65 out of a total number of 4,019 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The January 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered February 2018 by
MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
An RfC
has closed with a consensus that candidates at
WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a
Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors
responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using
Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A
tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by
automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee
has enacted a change to the
discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a
standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Hi again! Thanks for dealing with the revelation at
James Lee Byars. But I messed up, didn't check the earlier history carefully enough. Could I ask you to go exactly one revision further back, as the edit on 21 June 2014 (now removed) was copy-pasted from the New York Times of the previous day. Thank you so much!
By the way, I don't think the revdeletion you did at
Talk:Mary Farhill was really needed – the extracts that I and another editor had placed there for comparison with the article text were clearly identified as quotations. It absolutely doesn't matter to me, but the name caught my eye when I came here, so I thought I might as well say ... Many thanks again,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
20:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Byars, done. As for Farhill, borderline - it's still carrying a copyvio even an acknowledged one and it's arguably inconsistent to delete from the article and leave the offending text on the talk page. If it was still under discussion I would have left it until the discussion was concluded but as it seemed to be over.
Nthep (
talk)
20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you kindly; and (as I said) I really don't care in this case. But – just for the record – if you look at some of the results of, say,
this search, you'll see that this type of comparison has been very commonly used, and habitually left on view after use (of course I learnt from the queen of copyright how useful it can be, and copied her syntax too). Regards, thanks,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
21:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nthep,
Enantra is a professional Entrepreneurship Event held in Chennai.
/info/en/?search=Enantra
It was deleted, but there are so many articles supporting it. It also states that the admin can only recreate it.
Article 1Article 2Wesbite
Welcome to the one hundredth and nineteenth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (down from 14,269 last month to 13,993 on 27 February 2018), unsure why the numbers are dropping as there appears to be none removed from the categories. In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 66 out of a total number of 4,036 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 February 2018, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Census statistics
References to the
Office for National Statistics census data used in a large number of articles are all now dead. The
University of Durham have produced a replacement website, Nomis, that gives access to the 2011 census data. Template {{NOMIS2011}} has been created to enable this to be used in articles rather than use the URL directly as this could change and allow it to be modified centrally. There is no direct correlation between the old and new URLs so a BOT cannot be used to switch from one to the other. See the template documentation for further details of usage. It would be good if members could change articles over to use the new method of access for the 2011 census and check that the data is correct at the same time.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The March 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered March 2018 by
MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Community ban discussions
must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy
has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy
has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers
are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the
edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has
a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
I am highly distraught to discover that you have taken it upon yourself to delete the wikipedia page that I lovingly created. I would like it reinstated immediately in it's full form. I thank you for your co-operation and look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wolsey1918 (
talk •
contribs)
13:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the
Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up
here.
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity
are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are
now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a
calendar widget at
Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee
is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at
WP:AE or
WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at
WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A
discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to
enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the
Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Hi Nthep, thanks for repairing the affected articles… I hadn't anticipated, or noticed that
LibreOffice would AutoFormat the - > into a →… I find that hastily repairing a number of articles can create a certain amount of frisson… normal service has now been resumed. Best regards
DynamoDegsy (
talk)
17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I always worry when using AWB that there's going to be an unexpected outcome ever since I created a whole load of empty articles with just a category because I omitted to select the option "only if page exists".
Nthep (
talk)
17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
KSL.com Redirect
Several people on Wikipedia keep reverting back to the redirect for the KSL-TV page. Someone not affiliated with the company created the redirect in 2015. KSL-TV and KSL.com operate under the same parent company, but we are two separate companies and have two different editorial teams. KSL.com operates independently of KSL.com and would like to have its own page. But this can't be done every time someone changes the redirect back to KSL-TV.
An earlier version of the KSL.com wiki page had text that could be considered an advertisement, but that text has since been removed as we try to build the page. However, we can't do that when editors continue to change the page back to a redirect.
Any help here would be great so I don't get banned for reverting back to what we had.
@
J fur84: None of the above addresses the basic point of "why is KSL.com a notable entity in its own right?" That's what you have to address. You are also misinterpreting what Wikipedia is about. It's not for companies to advertise (in the widest sense) themselves but for material unconnected with the company to be pieced together to form a neutral piece. From what you have written I assume you work for KSL.com in which case you must read
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and
Wikipedia:Paid editing and act accordingly before editing further. You also say "we", it is a breach of Wikipedia's username policy (
WP:NOSHARING) and you must ensure that the account is only used by one person.
Nthep (
talk)
20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and twentieth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 13,993 last month to 14,013 on 7 April 2018). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 66 out of a total number of 4,049 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 March 2018, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The April 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered April 2018 by
MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
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.
Can you take a look at
Draft:Cline, Oklahoma? I tagged these images as source missing on Commons. A source was added but I am not sure it will be enough - I asked at Commons and one of the admins there is also unsure. The photographer and years are unknown, and it is a self-created photo of an older photo published in a book from 1971. There is a small bit of caption text in one of the photos. Pinging the article creator also
Amazingaswron.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
21:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@
SeraphWiki: difficult - US copyright status depends on publication date in the first instance and these photos maybe public domain if the book A History of Beaver County, Vol. 2 was a) the first publication of the images and b) the book was published without a copyright notice. If the history book wasn't the first place of publication then we would need to know when and in what they were first published to try and wok out the copyright status. The CC licences are almost certainly wrong unless Amazingaswron can explain how the copyright holder has granted such a licence.
Nthep (
talk)
22:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to find out who took the photos because they do not credit anyone in the book, I own the book by the way, if you want me to try to look around in it I can figure out maybe if they did credit them, but no guarantees. The book is really old now and the photos were taken in the 1800's its almost impossible to figure out who took them by now. Its possible that they are public domain now and free use is involved, but also not guaranteeing that as well. I could credit to each individual publisher or I can go to Beaver, OK and ask questions myself and ask if it is alright.- Amazingaswron — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Amazingaswron: I doubt we will get to the bottom of this entirely. I suspect the photos were previously unpublished, they are of the type that sit in archives for years gathering dust. So, first question does the book contain a copyright notice? Just one will cover the entire book including all the images included in it. If it doesn't great, if not then if you want to do the research a chat with the Beaver County History Society to see what they know about the provenance of the images. Sadly US law only gives public domain status to unpublished images over 120 years old.
Nthep (
talk)
22:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There is indeed a copyright notice but if I contact the society and get permission we can probably use the photos. But we arent using the information for commercial purposes couldnt we source it to all who was involved that put together the book, or would us law prevent that still. -Amazingaswron
@
Amazingaswron: It's a basic premise of the
image use policy that content can be reused commercially even though Wikipedia isn't making commercial use of the images. The Society can grant permission but they would have to explain how they hold the copyright on the images to be able to give any permission. They might be able to tell you though if the images had veen been pubished previously.
Nthep (
talk)
23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well i do know those images wers sent in from different families, my family actually owns one of the pictures i uploaded, so i dont think they can copyright it - amazingaswron — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
00:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well that stuffs things up. When you say you own one of the photos, is this a case of inheriting the copyright from the known photographer or just a copy (even the only copy) of the print came into your family's possession? If it's the former then you can licence it. If it's the latter then without evidence of prior publication copyright is going to last until 2066 (95 years from date of first publication).
Nthep (
talk)
14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well you see its not a original copy, I just know my great-grandmother took it and in 1973 my grandmother gave the photo to the society to use it, but there's no copyright at all on the photo, I thought privately taken photos could not be copyrighted unless for commercial use. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
So there is a known photographer for one of the photos, that's good news. The image description for that image needs to be updated to include the name of the creator i.e. your g-grandmother, and on behalf of the heirs you can licence it (assuming you all agree) using the template {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} A photo of this age is highly unlikely to have been copyrighted at the time of creation as under the then existent US copyright laws, the copyright would need to be formally registered. Hence as an unregistered work it didn't attain any copyright until it was published in 1971 in the book by the society. Nowadays the situation is different and the US is much more in line with other countries where copyright duration is based on death of the creator plus 70 years.
Nthep (
talk)
23:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The publishers of the book cannot claim copyright on an item you own or have inherited the copyright on, unless at the time there was a written agreement to assign the copyright to the publisher. It's unfortunate that you have lost the original as it becomes difficult to substantiate your claim of ownership but it doesn't change the basic principles.
Nthep (
talk)
17:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
So what conclusion have we made about this, should we just get rid of the photos or keep them, they are sourced to the book so I mean I don't know if they would really care. I really want to get this Cline wiki page up quick so whats your thoughts on what we should do in this situation — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amazingaswron (
talk •
contribs)
22:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of the one you own, the only conclusion I can come to is that they are all still in copyright until 2066. Annoying but that's the law. Whether the Historical Society care or not isn't relevant. Lack of images doesn't stop an article moving forward so concentrate on the prose. Thanks for trying though.
Nthep (
talk)
12:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Nthep! You've done loads of RD1 revdeletions at my request, for which many, many thanks. I'm at a loss to understand why you declined this one. Did you happen to look at the talk-page, where the extent of the problem is explained in detail? It has nothing whatsoever to do with a nineteenth-century funerary inscription, but concerns blatant copy-pasting from a modern non-free web source. Could you take another look? Thanks,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is blanked other than the outcome of the deletion discussion and no I didn't look at the history as there was no indication of any need to see a prior discussion. Now I've seen that discussion it is an eligible case (and the talk page).
Nthep (
talk)
23:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 26
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
#1Lib1Ref
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
Welcome to the one hundredth and eighteenth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 13,866 last month to 14,269 on 30 January 2018). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 65 out of a total number of 4,019 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The January 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered February 2018 by
MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
An RfC
has closed with a consensus that candidates at
WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a
Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors
responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using
Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A
tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by
automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee
has enacted a change to the
discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a
standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Hi again! Thanks for dealing with the revelation at
James Lee Byars. But I messed up, didn't check the earlier history carefully enough. Could I ask you to go exactly one revision further back, as the edit on 21 June 2014 (now removed) was copy-pasted from the New York Times of the previous day. Thank you so much!
By the way, I don't think the revdeletion you did at
Talk:Mary Farhill was really needed – the extracts that I and another editor had placed there for comparison with the article text were clearly identified as quotations. It absolutely doesn't matter to me, but the name caught my eye when I came here, so I thought I might as well say ... Many thanks again,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
20:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Byars, done. As for Farhill, borderline - it's still carrying a copyvio even an acknowledged one and it's arguably inconsistent to delete from the article and leave the offending text on the talk page. If it was still under discussion I would have left it until the discussion was concluded but as it seemed to be over.
Nthep (
talk)
20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you kindly; and (as I said) I really don't care in this case. But – just for the record – if you look at some of the results of, say,
this search, you'll see that this type of comparison has been very commonly used, and habitually left on view after use (of course I learnt from the queen of copyright how useful it can be, and copied her syntax too). Regards, thanks,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
21:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nthep,
Enantra is a professional Entrepreneurship Event held in Chennai.
/info/en/?search=Enantra
It was deleted, but there are so many articles supporting it. It also states that the admin can only recreate it.
Article 1Article 2Wesbite
Welcome to the one hundredth and nineteenth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (down from 14,269 last month to 13,993 on 27 February 2018), unsure why the numbers are dropping as there appears to be none removed from the categories. In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 66 out of a total number of 4,036 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 February 2018, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Census statistics
References to the
Office for National Statistics census data used in a large number of articles are all now dead. The
University of Durham have produced a replacement website, Nomis, that gives access to the 2011 census data. Template {{NOMIS2011}} has been created to enable this to be used in articles rather than use the URL directly as this could change and allow it to be modified centrally. There is no direct correlation between the old and new URLs so a BOT cannot be used to switch from one to the other. See the template documentation for further details of usage. It would be good if members could change articles over to use the new method of access for the 2011 census and check that the data is correct at the same time.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The March 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered March 2018 by
MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Community ban discussions
must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy
has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy
has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers
are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the
edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has
a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
I am highly distraught to discover that you have taken it upon yourself to delete the wikipedia page that I lovingly created. I would like it reinstated immediately in it's full form. I thank you for your co-operation and look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wolsey1918 (
talk •
contribs)
13:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the
Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up
here.
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity
are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are
now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a
calendar widget at
Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee
is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at
WP:AE or
WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at
WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A
discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to
enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the
Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Hi Nthep, thanks for repairing the affected articles… I hadn't anticipated, or noticed that
LibreOffice would AutoFormat the - > into a →… I find that hastily repairing a number of articles can create a certain amount of frisson… normal service has now been resumed. Best regards
DynamoDegsy (
talk)
17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I always worry when using AWB that there's going to be an unexpected outcome ever since I created a whole load of empty articles with just a category because I omitted to select the option "only if page exists".
Nthep (
talk)
17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
KSL.com Redirect
Several people on Wikipedia keep reverting back to the redirect for the KSL-TV page. Someone not affiliated with the company created the redirect in 2015. KSL-TV and KSL.com operate under the same parent company, but we are two separate companies and have two different editorial teams. KSL.com operates independently of KSL.com and would like to have its own page. But this can't be done every time someone changes the redirect back to KSL-TV.
An earlier version of the KSL.com wiki page had text that could be considered an advertisement, but that text has since been removed as we try to build the page. However, we can't do that when editors continue to change the page back to a redirect.
Any help here would be great so I don't get banned for reverting back to what we had.
@
J fur84: None of the above addresses the basic point of "why is KSL.com a notable entity in its own right?" That's what you have to address. You are also misinterpreting what Wikipedia is about. It's not for companies to advertise (in the widest sense) themselves but for material unconnected with the company to be pieced together to form a neutral piece. From what you have written I assume you work for KSL.com in which case you must read
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and
Wikipedia:Paid editing and act accordingly before editing further. You also say "we", it is a breach of Wikipedia's username policy (
WP:NOSHARING) and you must ensure that the account is only used by one person.
Nthep (
talk)
20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and twentieth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 13,993 last month to 14,013 on 7 April 2018). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 66 out of a total number of 4,049 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 March 2018, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The April 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered April 2018 by
MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.