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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Your edit of 21:09, 7 October 2018 of Kvassay Jenő resulted in a misnested tag for <i> and a missing end tag for <i>. I noticed that the documentation for Template:Redirect category shell mentions parameters named 1 and 2 but not h, but when I changed the h parameter to a 1, it caused new problems, and I don't understand what's going on, so I'm sending it back to you to see if you can fix it. —09:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Anomalocaris ( talk)
Read this in another language • Subscription list
This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.
@
. You can
test the new features on the
Beta Cluster. Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months.– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping your cool when all about you were losing theirs. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Template:Talk page info has been nominated for merging with Template:Banner holder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
respected admin i have replied to your query raised after answering my request on edit article here talk page zorawar singh kalhuria -- Loneltrussia ( talk) 15:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
oh sorry buddy my only intention was too avoid the confusion and make it clear in article ,like in countries like india people usually misjudge the the thing like in this line is a general of sikh empire and thought he is a sikh because i faced the this situation where people just do google then show screenshot of this to me and say he is general in sikh empire so he is sikh , although he doesn't became sikh by these things but it creates the confusion like thing . i have seen people on twitter saying he is sikh by religion by just refering the first line they don't even understand that ,hopefully my only aim was to clear doubt from peoples mind who dont read full article where in early life and careers section it is mentioned that he is born in hindu kalhuria family . iam now just saying that can you just add the term dogra in the first line without removing anything from article . this will avoid mislead what people got usually beacuse i see people on internet who got misleaded by article's first line .and for checking the word dogra you can check refernce attached to article . -- Loneltrussia ( talk) 16:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I personally agree with this edit. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals#Article content says not to do this (although it's ok for plant articles). Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey sorry about undoing your edit on the Labyrinth EP page, I completely forgot I was on the album page and not the single page. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 00:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Hey there! I saw that you closed the RM for Government of Victoria as having no consensus, but as per the previous comment from an uninvolved editor, there was consensus to move the article - the only thing that needed discussing was exacts of the target title (capitalisation of "State Government"), which was actually agreed on. I don't really want to go down the rabbit hole that is move reviews, but I feel as though this was possibly overlooked, especially considering that there was an already declared consensus for moving the article, and there was unanimous support after that for the target title ( Victoria State Governent). ItsPugle ( talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:
Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
*Reopen and relist. <uninvolved> Going out on a limb here, because it appears to me that the closer did not correctly assess the validity of the oppose rationales. "Clearly the primary topic"? Page views say no, as well as long-term significance says no. So apologies to the closer, and believe me I'm never happy with an editor who fails to discuss these first with the closer, but this looks like an "Oh what the heck, five opposes so 'not moved' just MUST be the right way to go," kind of non-closure. There is no PTOPIC here, so the dab page is needed and should be at the base name. (imho) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 05:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think a "reopen" is inappropriate, and even before the close, a "relist" would have been inappropriate. to begin with, the RM rationale is poor, below standard. "... I want to hear from other contributors. I don't really understand ..." is not a considered proposal for consensus decision making, it should have been a talk page post. Second, the editor who made a comment motivating the RM gave a very strong negative !vote. Third, the discussion already had four respondents in SNOW opposition. I am normally a strong proponent of good explanations for closes, but not in the case of unanimous opposition. It is not OK for the nominator to demand answers to their comments just because they initiated a formal RM process. There is room for further discussion, but the case does not look to be there that anything needs urgent fixing, and it looks like there is no better outcome than the status quo sitting in the wings. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) You know how loath I am to disagree with you, SmokeyJoe; however, in this case all of the oppose rationales were either specific about the topic presently at the base name as the primary topic, non-specific at all in terms as to why they opposed, or they merely agreed with the above opposers. So they all should have been thrown out. The page should have been renamed with a qualifier and the dab page moved to the base name. Poor closure! Let's say I had closed the RM, discounted the opposes and moved the pages. Now let's say one of the opposers opened an MRV against my closure. Wikipedia is not a democracy! Would you have BADNAC'd my close? or would you have seen through the poor oppose rationales and endorsed my close? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 06:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Paine Ellsworth, I hope "loath" is not really the right word. I actually enjoy disagreeing with you, because I see evidence that we both learn from the experience. The evidence in not to be found in answers given, but subsequent behaviours. I hope I don't upset you with bluntness; I could word things with more gentility, but if I did I would write a lot less.
If the closer were to have thrown out the "oppose" !votes, and moved per a line of logic, I would be very quick with a knee-jerk "WP:Supervote". A thought-test of this is: if the closer were to make that !vote, would the "oppose" !voters reverse their !votes? In the above case, I do not believe it would be likely.
I believe that a closer should take a very conservative role in respecting the prevailing discussion. If that discussion is misguided, the answer is to steer it better by participating. I think this is essential, not for the correct decision, but for the community to feel that they are respected in community consensus decision making. In these review forums, I deliberately resist looking though the mud of poor arguments to see the truth.
Should my cry be "BADNAC" or "Supervote" or "Bad close"? I am not sure, but I like "BADNAC" for the excellent advice for NACers that can be found at WP:BADNAC. A BADNAC would not be a good close if it were performed by an admin. What's different is that admins seem to take being taken to DRV or MR much more seriously than NACers, and they don't seem to need to read the advice. Sometimes, admins make closes that look like arbitrary decisions, but when pushed, and it takes DRV or MR to do the pushing, they are able to justify themselves, where NACers sometimes don't even answer.
Where to go from here? I suggest that if you really think there is a good justification to the move in the face of four firmly states oppose !votes, then, after a pause, you should launch a new RM with a better rationale. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for checking in on me (like a year and a half ago). Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; I just really needed a complete break from my online communities for a while. I'm doing good now though. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
"6 months to a year" moratorium is pretty arbitrary, and certainly not meriting a procedural close. I have attended many RMs where an unsuccessful request was followed mere days later by a successful one. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I know I still have much to learn about the definition of printability, as its practical application by other editors has not always been consistent.
As I understand, Great ape and Great apes cannot both be printworthy even though they are redirects to scientific names, since they would not be given separate listings in a print encyclopedia. I noticed that the former was being categorized as both printworthy and unprintworthy, so I fixed it.
The issue I have is with the choice of the plural title as (more) printworthy: It seems contrary to the spirit of WP:SINGULAR, especially the "Horse/Horses" example given within. I say "spirit" instead of "letter" because I know WP:SINGULAR is about article titles and does not aim to prescribe printability of redirects.
To what extent does the guideline about singular titles extend to redirects? Are certain biological classifications treated specially?
Also, why must the less-printworthy title be explicitly unprintworthy? Isn't this a rare case in which "printability unknown" could be acceptable? Alternatively, should there be a concept of multiple levels of printworthy, paralleling the distinction between unprintworthy {{
R from miscapitalisation}}
for which links "should be updated" and {{
R from other capitalisation}}
not necessarily so?
Thanks for enlightening me... --
SoledadKabocha (
talk) 05:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
R mentioned in hatnote}}
templates; my bad for not seeing myself that it was outdated.A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Malaysian name. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Malaysian name until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth! I am compiling a list/directory of editors with subject-specific expertise at User:Usedtobecool/Tea intended to be used by regular hosts at the Teahouse, to ping editors to help answer queries that are about to get archived unanswered. I was wondering if you would be interested in being listed? I thought of you for questions about "editing templates" and complex "wiki markup" that regular hosts have trouble figuring out; should not occur more than a few times a year. If you are interested, please check the list out, and add yourself to any and all categories you would be able to help with. Because teahouse posts get archived within 3 days, the more editors listed, the better chance there would be of finding an editor actively editing at the time assistance is required. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Hi Paine Ellsworth -- I know you have a lot going on, so no rush to answer this. But I'm curious about your close at Talk:See You When I Am Famous. While I know the numbers (7 support, 4 oppose) are one of those borderline situations that could be a move or a no consensus if the !votes all use strong arguments, I personally found the oppose rationales extraordinarily weak and all relying on ignoring aspects of the guidelines they cited (obviously my bias is clear!). So I'd be curious which !votes you found held water, as it was somewhat of an unusual case of the oppose !votes each having different rationales. The list below is certainly my biased rewording, but would still appreciate your thoughts:
Appreciate your thoughts and time.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Paine Ellsworth can you move Gauhar Khan Tanaaz Irani & Sanjjanaa page now as it’s been a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:54:9b5e:d9ed:c00e:4bbe:846b ( talk) 08:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
~~~~
. And please consider
becoming a registered user. Thanks again! PS left by
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 09:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)While I understand the first procedural close even though I disagree with it (on Bahrain-Israel normalization agreement the closer had no problem in reformatting the dash) your argument on the second close I do not think was done correctly. Simply because there was a consensus for something else doesn't preclude consensus changing ("Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments"). In fact, it was about to as shown by the unanimous support on my first move request. Very likely, nobody thought of the name at the time, so while there was strong support for Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement at the time most people didn't know of the other option. Because of that, I'm thinking of bringing that move to WP:Move review unless you wouldn't mind reopening the move request. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Might I bug you for a favor? I'd like to add some checks to Twinkle's redirect tagging, to prevent incompatible tags from being added. Some of these are obvious to me — {{ R printworthy}} and {{ R unprintworthy}} are the easiest examples — but others get a little confusing, and I'm not entirely sure how strict to be on things like miscapitalization and short names. You're who I'd first think of for advice, so I wonder what you'd suggest. The current list in Twinkle is below:
Anything that jumps out to you, or any suggestions at all would be most welcome! ~ Amory ( u • t • c)
Hello! I hope its fine that I ask for your assistance directly here, instead of filing a formal edit request at Template talk:Country data Serbia. Can you please make the following changes from the flags to the seals:
1. File:Emblem of the Serbian Armed Forces.svg for {armed forces|Serbia}}
2. File:Emblem of the Serbian Land Forces.svg for {army|Serbia}}
3. File:RFVSAmblem.png for {naval|Serbia}}
4. File:Serbian Air Force and Air Defence coat of arms.svg for {air force|Serbia}} (as well as chaging its link to Serbian Air Force and Air Defence, to avoid the Serbian Air Force redirect)
Sundostund ( talk) 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
Hi Paine, the move discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection)#Requested move 12 September 2020 has finally been closed, but only the short story article was moved per the closer's notes. So my main option is yet another move discussion, this time for moving Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, per WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. The alternative is to just move the article anyway, and see if it's disputed, and then hold another discussion. Any thoughts? BilCat ( talk) 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You still having "fun"? ;) BilCat ( talk) 19:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The move of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds does not have consensus in the RM you linked in your move summary. And in fact people mentioned that we should indeed keep both disambiguated. First, primary swaps instantly break both internal and external incoming links. Second, this series does not conform to WP:TVSERIES for notability/inclusion because there is not announced broadcast date (in fact, its not even in production yet). Please revert this un(der)discussed move. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I've been watching Talk:FFG(X)#Requested move 9 October 2020 for a few days, trying to decide how I would close it, or even if I should. Any thoughts? BilCat ( talk) 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:Relisting|}}
. That automatically signs for you, so don't leave a sig. Place one space after the original nom's/requestor's sig, then type or paste the Relisting template. That will move the RM in the log back to today's date and give it seven more days. See
WP:RELIST and
WP:RMCI#Relisting for more details. And remember to leave a brief notification on the WikiProject's talk page to maybe help with the consensus.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)I finally decided that I couldn't remain neutral in a close with all of the issues I felt needed to be addressed, and would end up supervoting. Since Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions allows a relister to subsequently participate, that's what I've done. Thanks again. BilCat ( talk) 05:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Ping!
BilCat (
talk) 22:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was just looking for someone to ask this when I noticed you completed my edit request so, I was wondering if you can request template edits on a consensus based on WP:SILENT for small changes?. This applies mostly to my proposal at {{ Graphic novel list}}, thanks. Terasail II [Talk] 01:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
While I don't personally agree with how things landed on the discussion regarding moving Ennis Del Mar, I appreciate that you gave a measured and thoughtful response in your closing comment. I don't imagine such things are especially easy, and you deserve recognition for the cogent way you laid out your thoughts on the subject. Thank you. DonIago ( talk) 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
The {{ archives}} template has a lot of edgecases and parameters.. too many for me. I think I will just stick to changing less complicated templates from now on.. Ha Terasail [Talk] 12:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|root=Template:Archives
I think in order to see those pages.. I think but am not entirely sure..
Terasail
[Talk] 13:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out at {{ Old peer review}}. Much appreciated :).
Tom (LT) (
talk) 04:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Paine Ellsworth. Thanks for your help with Template:Old peer review. Hope my gift of a kitten above is not too much of a burden and that you're not allergic :). Would you mind if I contacted you in the future if I'm tinkering with other peer review templates and need some help? Occasionally the code is exceedingly complex and would benefit from a second set of eyes, and I really appreciated your collegiate and constructive editing style :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
Template:Talk header italics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Rise of the Evangelical Church in Latin America. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dereck Camacho ( talk) 19:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. A deprecated source by RussiaToday was removed and a statement by Morsi is currently unsourced. Could you add this source and remove the "citation needed" tag for Mohammed Morsi's statement?: [1]
Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 09:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello Paine Ellsworth. Could you please answer my edit request? I've noticed you added the ref-talk there, but nobody else incorporated the information I wrote to the article itself. The text is non-controversial, historically significant and it's backed up by a good source. I hope I'm not bothering you in case you disagree with my content. Thank you very much.-- Hachan Base ( talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
After suppressing the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans exiled the Jews of Judea, but not those of Galilee. The Romans permitted a hereditary Rabbinical Patriarch (from the House of Hillel, based in Galilee), called the " Nasi" to represent the Jews in dealings with the Romans. The most famous of these was Judah haNasi, who is credited with compiling the final version of the Mishnah (a massive body of Jewish religious texts interpreting the Bible) and with strengthening the educational demands of Judaism by requiring that illiterate Jews be treated as outcasts. As a result, many illiterate Jews may have converted to Christianity. [1] Jewish seminaries, such as those at Shefaram and Bet Shearim, continued to produce scholars. The best of these became members of the Sanhedrin, [2] which was located first at Sepphoris and later at Tiberias. [3] Before the Bar Kochba uprising, an estimated 2/3 of the population of Galilee and 1/3 of the coastal region were Jewish. [4]
In the Galillee, many synagogues have been found dating from this period. [5] However, persecution and the economic crisis that affected the Roman empire in the 3rd century led to further Jewish migration from Syria Palaestina to the more tolerant Persian Sassanid Empire, where a prosperous Jewish community with extensive seminaries existed in the area of Babylon. [6] The burial site of the Sanhedrin leaders was discovered in 1936. [7] [8]
In the Galillee, many synagogues have been found dating from this period, [9] and the burial site of the Sanhedrin leaders was discovered in 1936. [10] [11] However, persecution and the economic crisis that affected the Roman empire in the 3rd century led to further Jewish migration from Syria Palaestina to the more tolerant Persian Sassanid Empire, where a prosperous Jewish community with extensive seminaries existed in the area of Babylon. [12]
References
Yes. Please do that. Your version is even better. Hachan Base ( talk) 06:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I realize you were using a script for the page moves at Talk:1920 University of Akron football team, so it was likely tricky to change only one of the proposed moves, but can you confirm that there was consensus in that discussion to move 1926 Akron football team to 1926 University of Akron football team instead of 1926 Akron Zippers football team, as I suggested? Based on the sources I found from newspapers in that year, it appears the WP:COMMONNAME for the 1926 squad was "Zippers" instead of the default "University of Akron" team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you. Apparently nobody is interested in making my edit request, although no specific objection was raised against it. Would you mind adding that sentence to article. I think it's relevant, neutral and pertinent to article. As usual, thanks a lot.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 15:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
Could you take a look at my last edit request? Thank you very much.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 11:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching#Arrests of lynching suspects
Talk:Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People#Controversy-Avi Dichter misquoted
As usual, thank you very much-- Watchlonly ( talk) 16:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. In light of the recent changes regarding Arab countries that joined the Abraham accords and established diplomatic relations with Israel, I've made three edit requests in different articles to reflect the new situation:
Talk:Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
Talk:History of Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
Thank you very much. Have a great week.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."
Happy editing,
User:245CMR
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Could you take a look at this and this? Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 20:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey! I hope you looked carefully at all the arguments on the move discussion on Talk:Çaylaqqala, I've linked a previous relevant discussion [2] in the text where an admin was consulted regarding the issue, and there has also been an issue with canvassing with regard to the move request and other connected ones: [ [3]]. The recent move discussion for the connected (part of the same previous NK holdout pocket) town of Hin Tagher [4] is also relevant for this case.
While an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh may be necessary in the end as has been suggested, most of the opposing arguments in the discussion are not based on referring to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME in order to make their case but are partisan in nature, and so to argue that consensus as Wikipedia guidelines define it (Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.) has been achieved as you've written, is a bit problematic in my view - while it perhaps could be said that there is a lack of clear consensus or that a standard move request is problematic considering the contentious nature of the issue and that an RfC for a naming convention is needed. AntonSamuel ( talk) 10:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: Thanks for the feedback! Pinging some more administrators: @ Rosguill: @ Ymblanter: @ El C: My main problem with the outcome of this debate is that I believe that I've presented pretty clear evidence or at least strong indication regarding the common name of the village - however, the opposing arguments largely weren't arguing with regard to Wikipedia guidelines, and canvassing has also been an issue that has affected the debate. So, if this is the situation we're in, that a move request can be stalled and overturned by procedural issues and optics so easily - I would argue that these debates are then pretty vulnerable to WP:FILIBUSTER/ Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, not adhering to the purpose of Wikipedia and its guidelines. What do you guys think is the best way to move forward? I am committed to try to see to it that these articles are named according to their common names as much as possible - is the option of an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh the only viable and legitimate option? I don't think I'll personally try to initiate further move requests if the outcome of this debate will be replicated en masse again. AntonSamuel ( talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Your edit of 21:09, 7 October 2018 of Kvassay Jenő resulted in a misnested tag for <i> and a missing end tag for <i>. I noticed that the documentation for Template:Redirect category shell mentions parameters named 1 and 2 but not h, but when I changed the h parameter to a 1, it caused new problems, and I don't understand what's going on, so I'm sending it back to you to see if you can fix it. —09:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Anomalocaris ( talk)
Read this in another language • Subscription list
This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.
@
. You can
test the new features on the
Beta Cluster. Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months.– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping your cool when all about you were losing theirs. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Template:Talk page info has been nominated for merging with Template:Banner holder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
respected admin i have replied to your query raised after answering my request on edit article here talk page zorawar singh kalhuria -- Loneltrussia ( talk) 15:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
oh sorry buddy my only intention was too avoid the confusion and make it clear in article ,like in countries like india people usually misjudge the the thing like in this line is a general of sikh empire and thought he is a sikh because i faced the this situation where people just do google then show screenshot of this to me and say he is general in sikh empire so he is sikh , although he doesn't became sikh by these things but it creates the confusion like thing . i have seen people on twitter saying he is sikh by religion by just refering the first line they don't even understand that ,hopefully my only aim was to clear doubt from peoples mind who dont read full article where in early life and careers section it is mentioned that he is born in hindu kalhuria family . iam now just saying that can you just add the term dogra in the first line without removing anything from article . this will avoid mislead what people got usually beacuse i see people on internet who got misleaded by article's first line .and for checking the word dogra you can check refernce attached to article . -- Loneltrussia ( talk) 16:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I personally agree with this edit. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals#Article content says not to do this (although it's ok for plant articles). Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey sorry about undoing your edit on the Labyrinth EP page, I completely forgot I was on the album page and not the single page. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 00:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Hey there! I saw that you closed the RM for Government of Victoria as having no consensus, but as per the previous comment from an uninvolved editor, there was consensus to move the article - the only thing that needed discussing was exacts of the target title (capitalisation of "State Government"), which was actually agreed on. I don't really want to go down the rabbit hole that is move reviews, but I feel as though this was possibly overlooked, especially considering that there was an already declared consensus for moving the article, and there was unanimous support after that for the target title ( Victoria State Governent). ItsPugle ( talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:
Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
*Reopen and relist. <uninvolved> Going out on a limb here, because it appears to me that the closer did not correctly assess the validity of the oppose rationales. "Clearly the primary topic"? Page views say no, as well as long-term significance says no. So apologies to the closer, and believe me I'm never happy with an editor who fails to discuss these first with the closer, but this looks like an "Oh what the heck, five opposes so 'not moved' just MUST be the right way to go," kind of non-closure. There is no PTOPIC here, so the dab page is needed and should be at the base name. (imho) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 05:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think a "reopen" is inappropriate, and even before the close, a "relist" would have been inappropriate. to begin with, the RM rationale is poor, below standard. "... I want to hear from other contributors. I don't really understand ..." is not a considered proposal for consensus decision making, it should have been a talk page post. Second, the editor who made a comment motivating the RM gave a very strong negative !vote. Third, the discussion already had four respondents in SNOW opposition. I am normally a strong proponent of good explanations for closes, but not in the case of unanimous opposition. It is not OK for the nominator to demand answers to their comments just because they initiated a formal RM process. There is room for further discussion, but the case does not look to be there that anything needs urgent fixing, and it looks like there is no better outcome than the status quo sitting in the wings. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) You know how loath I am to disagree with you, SmokeyJoe; however, in this case all of the oppose rationales were either specific about the topic presently at the base name as the primary topic, non-specific at all in terms as to why they opposed, or they merely agreed with the above opposers. So they all should have been thrown out. The page should have been renamed with a qualifier and the dab page moved to the base name. Poor closure! Let's say I had closed the RM, discounted the opposes and moved the pages. Now let's say one of the opposers opened an MRV against my closure. Wikipedia is not a democracy! Would you have BADNAC'd my close? or would you have seen through the poor oppose rationales and endorsed my close? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 06:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Paine Ellsworth, I hope "loath" is not really the right word. I actually enjoy disagreeing with you, because I see evidence that we both learn from the experience. The evidence in not to be found in answers given, but subsequent behaviours. I hope I don't upset you with bluntness; I could word things with more gentility, but if I did I would write a lot less.
If the closer were to have thrown out the "oppose" !votes, and moved per a line of logic, I would be very quick with a knee-jerk "WP:Supervote". A thought-test of this is: if the closer were to make that !vote, would the "oppose" !voters reverse their !votes? In the above case, I do not believe it would be likely.
I believe that a closer should take a very conservative role in respecting the prevailing discussion. If that discussion is misguided, the answer is to steer it better by participating. I think this is essential, not for the correct decision, but for the community to feel that they are respected in community consensus decision making. In these review forums, I deliberately resist looking though the mud of poor arguments to see the truth.
Should my cry be "BADNAC" or "Supervote" or "Bad close"? I am not sure, but I like "BADNAC" for the excellent advice for NACers that can be found at WP:BADNAC. A BADNAC would not be a good close if it were performed by an admin. What's different is that admins seem to take being taken to DRV or MR much more seriously than NACers, and they don't seem to need to read the advice. Sometimes, admins make closes that look like arbitrary decisions, but when pushed, and it takes DRV or MR to do the pushing, they are able to justify themselves, where NACers sometimes don't even answer.
Where to go from here? I suggest that if you really think there is a good justification to the move in the face of four firmly states oppose !votes, then, after a pause, you should launch a new RM with a better rationale. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for checking in on me (like a year and a half ago). Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; I just really needed a complete break from my online communities for a while. I'm doing good now though. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
"6 months to a year" moratorium is pretty arbitrary, and certainly not meriting a procedural close. I have attended many RMs where an unsuccessful request was followed mere days later by a successful one. Schierbecker ( talk) 03:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I know I still have much to learn about the definition of printability, as its practical application by other editors has not always been consistent.
As I understand, Great ape and Great apes cannot both be printworthy even though they are redirects to scientific names, since they would not be given separate listings in a print encyclopedia. I noticed that the former was being categorized as both printworthy and unprintworthy, so I fixed it.
The issue I have is with the choice of the plural title as (more) printworthy: It seems contrary to the spirit of WP:SINGULAR, especially the "Horse/Horses" example given within. I say "spirit" instead of "letter" because I know WP:SINGULAR is about article titles and does not aim to prescribe printability of redirects.
To what extent does the guideline about singular titles extend to redirects? Are certain biological classifications treated specially?
Also, why must the less-printworthy title be explicitly unprintworthy? Isn't this a rare case in which "printability unknown" could be acceptable? Alternatively, should there be a concept of multiple levels of printworthy, paralleling the distinction between unprintworthy {{
R from miscapitalisation}}
for which links "should be updated" and {{
R from other capitalisation}}
not necessarily so?
Thanks for enlightening me... --
SoledadKabocha (
talk) 05:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
R mentioned in hatnote}}
templates; my bad for not seeing myself that it was outdated.A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Malaysian name. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Malaysian name until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth! I am compiling a list/directory of editors with subject-specific expertise at User:Usedtobecool/Tea intended to be used by regular hosts at the Teahouse, to ping editors to help answer queries that are about to get archived unanswered. I was wondering if you would be interested in being listed? I thought of you for questions about "editing templates" and complex "wiki markup" that regular hosts have trouble figuring out; should not occur more than a few times a year. If you are interested, please check the list out, and add yourself to any and all categories you would be able to help with. Because teahouse posts get archived within 3 days, the more editors listed, the better chance there would be of finding an editor actively editing at the time assistance is required. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Hi Paine Ellsworth -- I know you have a lot going on, so no rush to answer this. But I'm curious about your close at Talk:See You When I Am Famous. While I know the numbers (7 support, 4 oppose) are one of those borderline situations that could be a move or a no consensus if the !votes all use strong arguments, I personally found the oppose rationales extraordinarily weak and all relying on ignoring aspects of the guidelines they cited (obviously my bias is clear!). So I'd be curious which !votes you found held water, as it was somewhat of an unusual case of the oppose !votes each having different rationales. The list below is certainly my biased rewording, but would still appreciate your thoughts:
Appreciate your thoughts and time.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Paine Ellsworth can you move Gauhar Khan Tanaaz Irani & Sanjjanaa page now as it’s been a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:54:9b5e:d9ed:c00e:4bbe:846b ( talk) 08:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
~~~~
. And please consider
becoming a registered user. Thanks again! PS left by
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 09:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)While I understand the first procedural close even though I disagree with it (on Bahrain-Israel normalization agreement the closer had no problem in reformatting the dash) your argument on the second close I do not think was done correctly. Simply because there was a consensus for something else doesn't preclude consensus changing ("Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments"). In fact, it was about to as shown by the unanimous support on my first move request. Very likely, nobody thought of the name at the time, so while there was strong support for Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement at the time most people didn't know of the other option. Because of that, I'm thinking of bringing that move to WP:Move review unless you wouldn't mind reopening the move request. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Might I bug you for a favor? I'd like to add some checks to Twinkle's redirect tagging, to prevent incompatible tags from being added. Some of these are obvious to me — {{ R printworthy}} and {{ R unprintworthy}} are the easiest examples — but others get a little confusing, and I'm not entirely sure how strict to be on things like miscapitalization and short names. You're who I'd first think of for advice, so I wonder what you'd suggest. The current list in Twinkle is below:
Anything that jumps out to you, or any suggestions at all would be most welcome! ~ Amory ( u • t • c)
Hello! I hope its fine that I ask for your assistance directly here, instead of filing a formal edit request at Template talk:Country data Serbia. Can you please make the following changes from the flags to the seals:
1. File:Emblem of the Serbian Armed Forces.svg for {armed forces|Serbia}}
2. File:Emblem of the Serbian Land Forces.svg for {army|Serbia}}
3. File:RFVSAmblem.png for {naval|Serbia}}
4. File:Serbian Air Force and Air Defence coat of arms.svg for {air force|Serbia}} (as well as chaging its link to Serbian Air Force and Air Defence, to avoid the Serbian Air Force redirect)
Sundostund ( talk) 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
Hi Paine, the move discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection)#Requested move 12 September 2020 has finally been closed, but only the short story article was moved per the closer's notes. So my main option is yet another move discussion, this time for moving Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, per WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. The alternative is to just move the article anyway, and see if it's disputed, and then hold another discussion. Any thoughts? BilCat ( talk) 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You still having "fun"? ;) BilCat ( talk) 19:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The move of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds does not have consensus in the RM you linked in your move summary. And in fact people mentioned that we should indeed keep both disambiguated. First, primary swaps instantly break both internal and external incoming links. Second, this series does not conform to WP:TVSERIES for notability/inclusion because there is not announced broadcast date (in fact, its not even in production yet). Please revert this un(der)discussed move. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I've been watching Talk:FFG(X)#Requested move 9 October 2020 for a few days, trying to decide how I would close it, or even if I should. Any thoughts? BilCat ( talk) 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:Relisting|}}
. That automatically signs for you, so don't leave a sig. Place one space after the original nom's/requestor's sig, then type or paste the Relisting template. That will move the RM in the log back to today's date and give it seven more days. See
WP:RELIST and
WP:RMCI#Relisting for more details. And remember to leave a brief notification on the WikiProject's talk page to maybe help with the consensus.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)I finally decided that I couldn't remain neutral in a close with all of the issues I felt needed to be addressed, and would end up supervoting. Since Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions allows a relister to subsequently participate, that's what I've done. Thanks again. BilCat ( talk) 05:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Ping!
BilCat (
talk) 22:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was just looking for someone to ask this when I noticed you completed my edit request so, I was wondering if you can request template edits on a consensus based on WP:SILENT for small changes?. This applies mostly to my proposal at {{ Graphic novel list}}, thanks. Terasail II [Talk] 01:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
While I don't personally agree with how things landed on the discussion regarding moving Ennis Del Mar, I appreciate that you gave a measured and thoughtful response in your closing comment. I don't imagine such things are especially easy, and you deserve recognition for the cogent way you laid out your thoughts on the subject. Thank you. DonIago ( talk) 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
The {{ archives}} template has a lot of edgecases and parameters.. too many for me. I think I will just stick to changing less complicated templates from now on.. Ha Terasail [Talk] 12:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|root=Template:Archives
I think in order to see those pages.. I think but am not entirely sure..
Terasail
[Talk] 13:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out at {{ Old peer review}}. Much appreciated :).
Tom (LT) (
talk) 04:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Paine Ellsworth. Thanks for your help with Template:Old peer review. Hope my gift of a kitten above is not too much of a burden and that you're not allergic :). Would you mind if I contacted you in the future if I'm tinkering with other peer review templates and need some help? Occasionally the code is exceedingly complex and would benefit from a second set of eyes, and I really appreciated your collegiate and constructive editing style :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
Template:Talk header italics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Rise of the Evangelical Church in Latin America. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dereck Camacho ( talk) 19:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. A deprecated source by RussiaToday was removed and a statement by Morsi is currently unsourced. Could you add this source and remove the "citation needed" tag for Mohammed Morsi's statement?: [1]
Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 09:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello Paine Ellsworth. Could you please answer my edit request? I've noticed you added the ref-talk there, but nobody else incorporated the information I wrote to the article itself. The text is non-controversial, historically significant and it's backed up by a good source. I hope I'm not bothering you in case you disagree with my content. Thank you very much.-- Hachan Base ( talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
After suppressing the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans exiled the Jews of Judea, but not those of Galilee. The Romans permitted a hereditary Rabbinical Patriarch (from the House of Hillel, based in Galilee), called the " Nasi" to represent the Jews in dealings with the Romans. The most famous of these was Judah haNasi, who is credited with compiling the final version of the Mishnah (a massive body of Jewish religious texts interpreting the Bible) and with strengthening the educational demands of Judaism by requiring that illiterate Jews be treated as outcasts. As a result, many illiterate Jews may have converted to Christianity. [1] Jewish seminaries, such as those at Shefaram and Bet Shearim, continued to produce scholars. The best of these became members of the Sanhedrin, [2] which was located first at Sepphoris and later at Tiberias. [3] Before the Bar Kochba uprising, an estimated 2/3 of the population of Galilee and 1/3 of the coastal region were Jewish. [4]
In the Galillee, many synagogues have been found dating from this period. [5] However, persecution and the economic crisis that affected the Roman empire in the 3rd century led to further Jewish migration from Syria Palaestina to the more tolerant Persian Sassanid Empire, where a prosperous Jewish community with extensive seminaries existed in the area of Babylon. [6] The burial site of the Sanhedrin leaders was discovered in 1936. [7] [8]
In the Galillee, many synagogues have been found dating from this period, [9] and the burial site of the Sanhedrin leaders was discovered in 1936. [10] [11] However, persecution and the economic crisis that affected the Roman empire in the 3rd century led to further Jewish migration from Syria Palaestina to the more tolerant Persian Sassanid Empire, where a prosperous Jewish community with extensive seminaries existed in the area of Babylon. [12]
References
Yes. Please do that. Your version is even better. Hachan Base ( talk) 06:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I realize you were using a script for the page moves at Talk:1920 University of Akron football team, so it was likely tricky to change only one of the proposed moves, but can you confirm that there was consensus in that discussion to move 1926 Akron football team to 1926 University of Akron football team instead of 1926 Akron Zippers football team, as I suggested? Based on the sources I found from newspapers in that year, it appears the WP:COMMONNAME for the 1926 squad was "Zippers" instead of the default "University of Akron" team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you. Apparently nobody is interested in making my edit request, although no specific objection was raised against it. Would you mind adding that sentence to article. I think it's relevant, neutral and pertinent to article. As usual, thanks a lot.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 15:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
Could you take a look at my last edit request? Thank you very much.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 11:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching#Arrests of lynching suspects
Talk:Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People#Controversy-Avi Dichter misquoted
As usual, thank you very much-- Watchlonly ( talk) 16:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. In light of the recent changes regarding Arab countries that joined the Abraham accords and established diplomatic relations with Israel, I've made three edit requests in different articles to reflect the new situation:
Talk:Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
Talk:History of Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
Thank you very much. Have a great week.-- Watchlonly ( talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."
Happy editing,
User:245CMR
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Could you take a look at this and this? Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 20:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey! I hope you looked carefully at all the arguments on the move discussion on Talk:Çaylaqqala, I've linked a previous relevant discussion [2] in the text where an admin was consulted regarding the issue, and there has also been an issue with canvassing with regard to the move request and other connected ones: [ [3]]. The recent move discussion for the connected (part of the same previous NK holdout pocket) town of Hin Tagher [4] is also relevant for this case.
While an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh may be necessary in the end as has been suggested, most of the opposing arguments in the discussion are not based on referring to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME in order to make their case but are partisan in nature, and so to argue that consensus as Wikipedia guidelines define it (Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.) has been achieved as you've written, is a bit problematic in my view - while it perhaps could be said that there is a lack of clear consensus or that a standard move request is problematic considering the contentious nature of the issue and that an RfC for a naming convention is needed. AntonSamuel ( talk) 10:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Andrewa: Thanks for the feedback! Pinging some more administrators: @ Rosguill: @ Ymblanter: @ El C: My main problem with the outcome of this debate is that I believe that I've presented pretty clear evidence or at least strong indication regarding the common name of the village - however, the opposing arguments largely weren't arguing with regard to Wikipedia guidelines, and canvassing has also been an issue that has affected the debate. So, if this is the situation we're in, that a move request can be stalled and overturned by procedural issues and optics so easily - I would argue that these debates are then pretty vulnerable to WP:FILIBUSTER/ Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, not adhering to the purpose of Wikipedia and its guidelines. What do you guys think is the best way to move forward? I am committed to try to see to it that these articles are named according to their common names as much as possible - is the option of an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh the only viable and legitimate option? I don't think I'll personally try to initiate further move requests if the outcome of this debate will be replicated en masse again. AntonSamuel ( talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)