News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

Thank you for protecting the page. It seems this dispute has gone back to 2015. Would you, or another admin, be willing to remove it in accordance with the consensus reached at Talk:Flag of Earth#International Flag of Planet Earth? I’d like to note I didn’t participate in that debate at all, so I feel appropriate to make this request. I’d also like to note that the IP’s addition is entirely unsourced as well, which is a second concern. Garuda28 ( talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for the note. I was looking at the talk page discussion, and I'm not sure I see a clear consensus there. I see seven people who commented on the discussion, spread over several years, with a 3-4 split in the consensus. I wouldn't count that as consensus either way. I think what would make this "stick" more, if your intention is to do that, would be to have a more rigorous discussion over the inclusion/not of the flag using something like WP:RFC and to notify relevant Wikiprojects of the discussion (is there a vexillology one?) to generate some discussion around the issue. I'm sensitive to your point, but I really can't interpret the scant discussion so far as representing "consensus". -- Jayron 32 19:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Of course! I’ll probably do that sometime in the next few days. Garuda28 ( talk) 23:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brendan O'Brien (record producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifehouse ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Wakemed logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Just wanted to let you know the RfC at Talk:Peppermint (drag queen) was just closed. I'm not sure if you intended the full protection you placed on the article to last beyond that or not, so wanted to let you know in case you did not. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

 Done. Sorry. I've been away a bit. Back now. -- Jayron 32 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Uncalled for and unhelpful. Snide actually. If you have nothing positive to contribute, don't. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was trying to be helpful as best as I could. You asked for help in removing some vandalism. If you want, I can remove it for you. -- Jayron 32 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

If your comments were really in good faith, I apologise wholeheartedly. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

And if my comments seemed unhelpful, I also apologize. I just realized that you're not a new user; I honestly don't often look at the username when I respond to things on help boards. I mistakenly thought you were a new user who found some bit of vandalism and didn't know what to do next. Now that I know you're well experienced, I can totally see how my comments come off as patronizing. I am quite sorry about that. -- Jayron 32 13:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Na, it's my fault. I think it's my ego. I should get out more. Except I can't. Lol. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 21:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nancy McFarlane, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Francis and Thomas Bradshaw ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That's transient teenage slang, which was largely confined to certain age subgroups of a certain socioeconomic status (and may in fact owe more to the movie Clueless than to real-life prevalence), so it doesn't necessarily illuminate traditional territorial dialect forms such as "wooder". AnonMoos ( talk) 22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Okay. -- Jayron 32 13:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

Looks like you reverted the comments you added just as I was doing so. We definitely will welcome those kinds of comments once the RfC is opened, though for now we are just looking for comments on the structure of the draft itself. We will widely advertise once the RfC is open. Thanks for your contributions :) GorillaWarfare  (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there ju wondering why you undid my piece on Jeremy Chapman (ulick Browne) his titles are self styled and yes he was born Chapman I have research this evidence before amending a lot of users refer to burkes peerage here. This company is not factual based and there for should not be used Joshmae ( talk) 09:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

If you're going to make additions or changes to an article, you need to cite your sources. Everyone who reads the article needs to be able to verify it. -- Jayron 32 18:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Everytime I contact Sony Pictures Home Entertainmemt by email, they never reply. Here are their emails from their website. 86.128.175.64 ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• SPTB2B@spe.sony.com
• Contact us
• press@spe.sony.com
• press_office@spe.sony.com

What to do you want me to do? -- Jayron 32 18:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't know. What do you suggest? 86.128.175.64 ( talk) 18:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I have no suggestions. -- Jayron 32 18:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Maybe call them on the phone? 86.128.175.64 ( talk) 18:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

You don't need my permission to do so. -- Jayron 32 18:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Although I suppose that Wikipedia is not about personal feelings, I want to express that I really felt harassed by that editor and that I'm very thankful that someone (you) protected me from harassment that I feel was undeserved. Such things really make me a bit nervous. Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Don't sweat it. His actions indicated a desire to not play by the rules, and was petty and vindictive. Such behavior is not conducive to collaborative editing. -- Jayron 32 14:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

"Wouldn't bat an eye", huh? Now that you mention it, I guess I am rather a little more straitlaced on-Wiki than I am in real life. (But you're right, it was out of character. But I'm beyond fed up.)

Anyway, sorry for the nuisance. I expected to either get played along with, or reverted. That someone might suspect account compromise never crossed my mind. — Steve Summit ( talk) 18:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

It's all good. I was concerned is all. No hard feelings?-- Jayron 32 03:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Of course not! Thanks for your concern. — Steve Summit ( talk) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Neutron, Crashletes, All That, Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? and The Dude Perfect Show are all Back on The Schedule, Here's My Source: https://www.tvpassport.com/tv-listings/stations/nicktoons-hd-east/11445/2020-05-01 Snesboy12 ( talk) 14:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

Earlier today, you undid edits on the Y.A. Tittle page. I do know what I'm talking about, and the photo on the page is not the better-known image. It is not the one in Life Magazine, nor is it the one in and on Tittle's book, which credits it to the Associated Press. What happened is this: Dozier Mobley of the AP published his image (Tittle looking forward, stunned) ahead of Berman's (Tittle looking down); Mobley's ran in Life in 1964, not Berman's. Berman then entered his in some contests and did some other self-promotion. Meanwhile, the image that is most commonly reproduced — again, as in Tittle's own book — is Mobley's. I'm a journalist — 10 years at the Virginian-Pilot, 20 at NPR — so I take this stuff seriously. I'm sorry you failed to see that. AndOneForMahler ( talk) 22:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Interesting. There's a half dozen independent, reliable, and in-depth sources in the article about the Berman image. And then there's you, with no source material, just claiming everyone believe you because you are willing to insist on it. It would be quite fine for you to add extra text describing the second image (with properly citedv reliable sources, of course) since you, as a journalist, obviously understand the importance of both preserving the information already in the article AND citing reliable sources for the text you want to add. -- Jayron 32 22:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you find this interesting, because it is! Here you go. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/10/556786699/football-legend-y-a-tittle-dies-at-90

https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2017/10/10/hall-of-fame-qb-ya-tittle-dead-at-90/

If you actually look at the issue of Life Magazine (the cite's right there), and Tittle's book, the image is *clearly* Mobley/AP, as shown in the NPR report. The images are often confused, but the provenance is clear. Wikipedia is giving Morris Berman credit above and beyond what his photo deserves. The point is that what you call the "second" image was actually the first. AndOneForMahler ( talk) 23:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I believe the picture exists. I've never doubted that. What you want to do is to remove information from Wikipedia which is well covered in in-depth writing in several other sources, which you should not do; also, if you want to add information about your picture, then you'll need to find similar writing about that picture to a similar depth and bredth, and use that information as references in your writing. Merely proving your picture exists is not sufficient, you need to find writing about it to act as references for what you want to add to Wikipedia. And again, the existence of your picture does not make the in-depth writing about the Berman image go away. Other people have thought the Berman image significant enough to put it in museums (the Newseum, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the National Press Photographer's Association). Still, I did some looking, and you are correct that the Mobley Image was used in Life and in Tittle's autobiography. I have corrected the writing to reflect the difference between the two images. -- Jayron 32 12:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response, and amending the article — though the photographer is Dozier Mobley, not Dexter. Here's a cite for the Mobley image: https://apnews.com/fcffb6da1be3482b8730d6b4c3af928d "Tittle never won a championship, but came to personify the competitive spirit of football, thanks to an iconic photo taken by Dozier Mobley during Tittle’s final season in 1964.

"The frame caught the then-37-year-old quarterback, who looked older than his years, after throwing an interception returned for a touchdown by Pittsburgh’s Chuck Hinton. Tittle is seen kneeling in exhaustion and pain from an injured rib, blood dripping down his face from a head gash."

And one other thing. The Berman image "does not hang in the Hall of Fame, not in the exhibit spaces" according to Jon Kendle, Director of Archives & Football Information at the Hall in Canton. The more accurate way to phrase it, he says, is "the Berman photo resides in the Hall of Fame archives, because he submitted it to the Hall of Fame's yearly photo exhibit." Jon.Kendle@profootballhof.com. AndOneForMahler ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The Los Angeles Times disagrees with you: [1]. -- Jayron 32 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

In this case, the LA Times is wrong, unfortunately. Here's another example. Elsewhere in the same article, it says: "While other photographers recorded Baker’s hit and Tittle as he was later helped to his feet by teammates, Berman was apparently the only one to capture Tittle alone, battered and bleeding and sitting back on his knees," which is obviously untrue. AndOneForMahler ( talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Well spotted. I knew there wasn't something quite right about him from the off, and I actually asked him about it on his talk page back in 2018. But I never made the C3 connection. -- Viennese Waltz 09:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

He's done a good job of hiding himself. This isn't the first long-time hidden sock I've caught. But he has his tells that when they click, click, and when you go digging, it's easy to spot him. Some of them are SUPER obvious when you read the SPI reports, but others are things I've made mental note of that I haven't seen publicly documented anywhere, and something he did last week raised my antennas, and when I looked a little closer, there he was. -- Jayron 32 12:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, I just noticed this, which was posted well after I started the SPI. Old habits die hard. -- Jayron 32 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, you were an admin who supported unblocking at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Block_review_request based on the user stating they will refrain from the issues that led to blocks. Floquenbeam is the unblocking administrator, but it appears they are on a wikibreak at the moment. Could you review this based on subsequent violations of NOTBROKEN that have occurred since the user was unblocked? Eagles  24/7  (C) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I did not necessarily agree with the initial block, so I have no interest in doing anything right now. Please start a new thread at WP:ANI instead of cherry picking admins you think will be interested in doing your bidding. -- Jayron 32 18:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Wow, okay, I "picked" you for input because you specifically said you were "agnostic" about the initial block and supported an unblock there, and I felt it was much fairer to the user to ask you than ask someone who just agreed with me. Sorry for bothering you. Eagles  24/7  (C) 18:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Agnostic means I didn't have an opinion on it one way or the other. A position I have not, in the intervening time, changed. -- Jayron 32 18:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

And I take that to mean "neutral" and thus an ideal administrator to ask about a situation they have knowledge about. In the meantime, the user has said they are confused about my point about NOTBROKEN, so hopefully I can help them out and we can finally get on the same page. Eagles  24/7  (C) 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Could you please take a look at the history of edits by User:Oliver Wendell 2009? A large portion of their work involves road junction lists on highways in New England. Unfortunately, the edits do not comply with WP:RJL; the editor is routinely changing the listed destinations away from what is visible on the highway signage. I have made numerous attempts to discuss the situation with the editor and have had no responses. The only interaction so far has been in an edit summary ( Connecticut Route 2). I've taken the issue to WT:USRD, where members reiterated the importance of abiding with the road junction list standards. Oliver refrained from editing for about a week but has now returned to reverting to their preferred edits. I want to avoid 3RR. Thank you for your help. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 10:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

Hey, Jayron32. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 06:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

In the TV series The Tudors, Mary (played by 16-18 year old Sarah Bolger) remained unmarried from toddler to the age of 30 at the end of the series. In the first few episodes of season 1, she was to be married to King Francis' son but was declined. She was then betrothed to Charles of Spain but declined as well. In the final episode of season 3, she fell in love with Philip of Bavaria but he was sent away, which broked her heart. In the first few episodes of season 4, Catherine Howard was surprised that Mary was still not married and she broke down in tears with Eustace Chapuys comforting her when she realised she will probably never get married. And in the final episode, the ghost of her mother tells Henry that Mary ought to be a long time married by now and have her own children. ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Young_Princess_Mary_never_getting_married) 86.129.17.70 ( talk) 19:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Can this page be unprotected (Or at least downgraded to extended protected)? I noticed you protected this page back in February pending discussion about "Christmas episodes", but that discussion never started and never happened, and it's now about 4 months later. (And I ran across this due to wanting to perform an unrelated edit ... fixing the bare URLs on the page.) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Steel1943: Done-- Jayron 32 04:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II ( BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an 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.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angier.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello @ Jayron32::

By way of introduction, I am @ Ktin:, a recent contributor to the messages at WP:ITNC. Earlier today, we had an interaction, where you highlighted that my message could be construed as accusatory ( link here) to others on the group, and more specifically to another user @ John M Wolfson:.

Please let me clarify that was absolutely not my intent. Please accept my humble apologies, if that was what came out of that message. I pride myself in the utmost professionalism that I bring to my interactions in the offline world, and I would want my online interactions to be no different.

Also, in the same note you mentioned that I deleted your message, I want to admit that that was a genuine edit conflict due to a simultaneous edit.

Again, thanks for all that you do, and again, please treat this note about our interaction as my apologies for any unintended impact my edits and words might have had on you.

Regards, Ktin ( talk) 21:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message. I too regret the way things went there. Please also accept my apology for being accusatory. I probably over-reacted. Please also accept my apology. -- Jayron 32 12:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Cheers, onward and upwards! Ktin ( talk) 22:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

...could use a couple of rev-dels due to the libelous comments by a sock. [2] ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Never mind, it's been taken care of. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

In the period 22-24 April 2018 you contributed to a discussion on the subject of the Reference desk guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 130#Proposed change to Reference desk Guidelines.

This subject is now being discussed again in a Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Does this page reflect community consensus. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Dolphin ( t) 13:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, I just learned you are an admin. Can you look at the [3] humanities last post and check if is a problem - it cites an earlier question that was deleted for being banned. Looks like an attempt to test the medical advice guideline under discussion. Ta 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 16:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Future Perfect at Sunrise: has gotten better at this particular banned user than I have. I've lost a bit of my mojo. Maybe they can make a move. -- Jayron 32 20:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you both, and hang in there, I'm sure the mojo will return. 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, asshole speaking. I'm sorry that my comments went down that badly: they hadn't been intended as patronizing. (They may have resulted from a mind that was somewhat rattled at the time: RL was impinging on my consciousness, and not in a pleasant way.) I notice now that I wrote for example "'Education' is a noun", which could have sounded extraordinarily patronizing in a way that "'Education' being a noun" would I think not. Anyway, do please stick around there: I think I'll give myself an indefinite break. Indeed, right now I think I'll turn off this typewriter thing and relax with some popular beat combo. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you. The suggestion of texts to learn English grammar seemed particularly pointed and insulting, and as I said, if I do something wrong, tell me. Just say "I think you're incorrect on that, and here's why..." and I actually do appreciate that. I don't want to be wrong, and I genuinely appreciate any attempt someone makes to educate me on my wrongness (trust me, I'm wrong A LOT). But the tone of your message came off at once both condescending and insulting, especially the whole "If you really want to learn how to speak English properly, here's some good grammar texts you can buy, if their not too expensive for you, tut-tut". I should probably apologize too for over-reacting. And the best way to get on my good side is free beer. We're good! -- Jayron 32 10:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I think I understand now. The two books I recommended are descriptive. They assume that their readers already have an advanced tacit knowledge of English grammar. It would be perverse to use the shorter book as a textbook to "teach English grammar" to learners of English as a second language or nervous users of English as a first; as for attempting to use the longer book for this, anyone proposing such a notion would be insane -- it's a reference grammar with 1800+ densely printed pages! The authors have no more interest in improving anyone's ability in English than the authors of a book about the solar system have in suggesting that Jupiter really ought to get its act together, lose some helium and up its radon. The books are for learning about English grammar. I think it's perfectly healthy for native speakers of a language to have little or no interest in the language; but most speakers do seem to have an interest and these books are good for such an interest. (Again, the books have nothing to do with wanting to learn how to speak English properly -- though each does have a certain number of asides in which prescriptivist myths about grammar are dismissed.) What does worry me is that I find myself citing Huddleston and Pullum (H&P) about as automatically as a Party member in a kolkhoz might cite Marx and Engels: has a certain approach to descriptive grammar become unthinking dogma? I hope not; I hope I remain open-minded (and can point to several places where H&P falter). -- Hoary ( talk) 12:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply

You know, I have not tried that one. I'll have to check out Total Wine; they've got a really big international beer section. I'll add it to my list. The local bottle shops around here carry mostly local and major US microbrews (my state is a major microbrew hub. We've got at least 25-30 in the county I live in alone, and most of those have retail bottling operations). -- Jayron 32 15:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Actually Coedo isn't outstanding; it's just good, which separates it from any other beer I noticed at Bar WM Commons. For decades there were seven brands: Kirin, Sapporo, Asahi, Suntory, Ebisu, Yoro, and Orion. Yoro was merely a (very minor) brand of Sapporo; Ebisu was/is the slightly less boring alternative brand of Sapporo; Orion was particularly feeble but viewed indulgently because it was brewed in the Ryūkyūs. Orion hasn't improved since. Kirin makes a good lager named Braumeister that's hard to find even here. Suntory makes one named "Master's Dream". Suntory also sometimes sells small quantities of an IPA. The rest of the macrobrewery stuff? Forget it. Small breweries started up a decade or so ago and proved their worth (?) by making decent imitations of the macrobrewery swill. But they have branched out into more interesting beers. It's hard to believe that they could represent good value when bought in the US. Still, if you're in a restaurant with Japanese pretensions (or of course realities), ignore anything that (probably truthfully) is described as popular in Japan (notably Asahi Super Dry) and look for names I haven't mentioned (or Coedo). -- Hoary ( talk) 00:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I've had all the big name stuff (Kirin, Sapporo, Asahi) and it's all that unoffensively bland mass-market lager that is nothing special. I'm more of a Belgian kind of guy. My go to is a Belgian Tripel. The real-deal Trappist brands are nice, but super expensive. There's some US ones that I particularly like, Raleigh Brewing Company makes one called "Hell Yes Ma'am" which is probably my number 1 beer, but national brands like New Belgium (Tripel) and Victory (Golden Monkey) are pretty darned good too. -- Jayron 32 17:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi! Can you put on the previous state of this article [ [4]] there are 5 RS. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.83.115 ( talk) 09:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, no. Please read Wikipedia's protection policy noted at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Administrators do not pick sides when protecting an article that is currently the target of an edit war. The policy is, unless there is some other policy violation, to protect the article in whatever state it was in when it was protected, and that's that. What you should do is to start a discussion at the article talk page, and achieve a consensus as to how to proceed. If you can show such a consensus, the article will be unprotected. -- Jayron 32 09:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

Hello, so at this time there has been no official submission for route designation I-885 with AASHTO, which we keep a list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/AASHTO minutes The Autumn Meeting is coming up, so I do anticipate a request on this meeting and it is my understanding that FHWA is aware of the designation which is why its been going through as a foregone conclusion at this point. NCDOT also keeps good record of route changes in one depository located here. So officially I-885 is not existing as of yet, but it will soon be once the birth certificates are signed-off. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Understood. It's just designed as a reminder that we need to keep in mind that signs are up. Blue and red and big 885s in the middle. The article implies that no one really knows what the signs will look like when the tarps come down, or that they haven't been made. They've spent many thousands of dollars making those signs. I'm pretty sure someone has already made some kind of important decision before slapping giant shields on everything. -- Jayron 32 18:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for fixing that red link. I think your a great administrator Dq209 ( talk) 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

No problem. I try to be helpful when I can. -- Jayron 32 13:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions ( phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

If you decide to create an article about him, I'd be willing to contribute to it. Also note that he is mentioned in 35 WP articles: [5]. It is unlikely that I can be reached at this IP talk page; I'll check your page for any response, or try User_talk:107.15.157.44. -- 2606:A000:1126:28D:D448:69F6:26C2:125 ( talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I've created the article and dropped a bunch of potential refs in it. -- Jayron 32 12:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you  [It's me] 2606:A000:1126:28D:F577:C62E:6E1E:608A ( talk) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pope Francis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bouncer.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello there. Thanks much for posting Cecilia Chiang on WP:ITNRD. You might have inadvertently missed giving 'credit' on this one post posting the article to homepage / RD. If you do not mind, please can you do so when you get a moment. I am trying to catalog my contributions in this space. Thanks. Ktin ( talk) 15:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Will do! -- Jayron 32 15:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Ktin: I think I got all the major recent contributors. If I missed anyone, let me know! -- Jayron 32 15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Jayron32, Looks good! Thanks much. Ktin ( talk) 18:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection 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.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that 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).

---

Hi. It isn't often that I come across poetry in edit summaries, so I wanted to drop by and thank you for brightening up my day just a little bit with this! MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 18:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm a poet, and I don't know it. My feet do show it. They're long fellows. -- Jayron 32 18:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

No conflict from my point of view. Your dates are more precise than mine. Should "edit conflict" be deleted? -- Morinox ( talk) 13:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Morinox: No, "edit conflict" doesn't mean I disagree with you. It means I tried to post at the same time as you. See Help:Edit conflict for more information. -- Jayron 32 13:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Ok, thank you. -- Morinox ( talk) 17:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I don't understand why you closed the 'arbitrary break' part just now. – Sca ( talk) 16:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I closed the whole thing. There is zero chance of the election being removed from ongoing. If and when the results are official and "locked in" we can discuss a blurb. The discussion was devolving into the regular self-righteousness that such discussions always devolve into, and there was no chance of it producing any meaningful change to Wikipedia. -- Jayron 32 16:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

In the Humanities desk, we've got a user named "Spinney Hill" reposting from a banned user, and we've got a user named "DuncanHill" enabling it. Meanwhile, the thing Spinney Hill reposted does not show up in the banned user's edit log. Something doesn't make sense. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I'll look into it. -- Jayron 32 14:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

And I see what happened. The banned user had reposted 2 items from 2 different IP addresses, one of which was the banner user's IP address at the time of reposting. That's what I had missed before. Then FPAS zapped it. [6] Then Duncan's cousin(?) restored it. Oy! ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selenite.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

If you don't mind, I've got a quick alternate history question for you:

Do you think that Benito Mussolini still eventually comes to power in Italy if there is either no Bolshevik Revolution in Russia or if the Bolshevik attempt to seize power in Russia in November 1917 fails? Futurist110 ( talk) 21:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

I was surprised by this comment, given that I've been editing for 14 years, have made over 2,600 mainspace edits and over 6,600 wikipedia-space edits, which are mainly questions and answers at the ref desks. -- Viennese Waltz 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Maybe spending less time attacking others for good faith attempts to answer questions. Your credentials aren't interesting to me. How you treat other people is. -- Jayron 32 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm simply taking issue with your statement that my "main purpose" here is to "chastise others". Do you want to rethink that comment? -- Viennese Waltz 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

While maybe not quantitatively true, it certainly stands out in nearly every interaction I've had with you as a defining characteristic. -- Jayron 32 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Would you have had a problem with my most recent intervention if it had been made on the ref desk talk page, rather than on the ref desk itself? -- Viennese Waltz 19:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I still don't fully understand your "intervention". Our job at the reference desk is to provide references so people can learn more about their topic or get past stumbling blocks in their research where they have hit a wall. I provided such a reference. I understand that (for reasons unknown to me, but apparent for as long as I can remember) that you despise me, and have for years, but it would be best if you kept your hatred of me personally from distracting at the reference desks, where our mission should continue to be to aid posters there in doing research that may lead them to answer the questions they have. If you had more information than I was able to find, you could have felt free to provide that information. I have always invited and responded positively to expansions of my incomplete answers and corrections to my incorrect answers. But your vitriol and hatred directed at me in your post was not that. It served no purpose in helping the OP. -- Jayron 32 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

"Vitriol and hatred"? Whoa there. I don't know where you get that from my post, which was not in the least directed at you personally, as should be clear from the fact that it didn't even contain the word "you" in it. More to the point, your vision of what the RD is for is very different from mine. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. -- Viennese Waltz 20:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

You don't have to use "you" to make it abundantly clear you were talking at me. Circumlocution does not change the clear intent of your message. There was nothing about my answer that should have stood out among the dozens of answers provided by dozens of other people all over the reference desks in the past week, and yet you felt the need to single me out for what? What did I ever do to you that you would take an innocuous attempt to help someone else and make it all about me? Why do I get special attention? That, however, is also beside the point. If you could disagree by expanding on my answers where you find them incomplete, or correct them where you find them incorrect, without making it about me, that would be more productive than what you did there, and we'll have no further unpleasantness. -- Jayron 32 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

But that's exactly what I did. Your answer was incomplete and unhelpful. If you make incomplete and unhelpful answers on the ref desks, you should expect to be called on it. -- Viennese Waltz 20:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

All answers are incomplete. I take issue with your characterization that it was unhelpful. I provided what information I could find that the OP had not yet found on their own. I will note that, before you felt the need to single me out, another person helped provide more information I couldn't find. We work together here collectively, each providing what one can. Your standards are unreasonable, and I note, only applied to me. I will continue to be as helpful as I can by providing as much information as I can find on topics where I answer them, and if you don't like that, I'll kindly ask you to keep your feelings to yourself. -- Jayron 32 20:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32

I read your comments on the multiverse today and was sufficiently interested to take a look at the Sean M. Carroll article to see if it had some links to his lectures which you recommended. It turns out that both "videos" in the External links section at the bottom of the article no longer work as they are, apparently, now pointing to an account on youtube that has been deleted. However, there certainly are some videos at "Sean M. Carroll on youtube".. Rather than try to fix these issues myself, I thought I'd ask you to do so, since you are clearly more expert in this field than I am and can perhaps select the best of his available lectures for the article. Thanks in advance. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 15:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not really an expert in the field by any means, just watched a few of his youtube videos before. I'm mostly a poseur who answers questions on the ref desks, and am not a particular expert on anything useful beyond self-aggrandizement. Sorry!-- Jayron 32 15:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll just swap the dead links for live ones, then. I watched one of the lectures today and learnt a bit. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 16:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, just notifying you that in the above discussion, I've de-indented a post of yours by 2 colons to clarify that it's a reply directly to a post by the OP, rather than to my own reply to a reply [sic] by Baseball Bugs to the OP. If you disagree with my amendment, feel free to reverse it without further discussion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 ( talk) 02:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Precious

Three years!

Good wishes on my talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you very kindly! -- Jayron 32 12:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Knightdale, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 540.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Please see Uyghurs#Origin_of_modern_nomenclature. The ethnonym "Turki" was pretty much ubiquitous from Anatolia to East Turkestan starting from the cultural Turkification of the latter the until colonial powers decided to engage in their divide-and-conquer strategy, and before that it's generally accepted that the inhabitants of the region were the Saka (an Iranian people), who were still unrelated to the Uyghurs of ancient fame. The closest relatives of the latter are the Yugurs.

Note that this isn't meant to be a rant against the contemporary Uyghur people (trust me, I'd be the last one to spread hate against them; I consider them family). I'm simply trying to point out a misconception about "Uyghur" as an ethnonym. M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I appreciate the extra information! -- Jayron 32 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply

My pleasure :-) M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Please make a positive discretionary sanction to the effect of approving the format and the unsigned instructional text in it's current form in the RM with the table. This is because there is someone intent on posting disruptive comments above the table, and questioning the set up. The set up was functionally unchanged from start, and extensively discussed in table discussion below. A little more information can be found on my talk page. If you could just add a short notice or sign the instructions yourself (particularly this one: Please don't comment on the proposal in this section. Technical discussion on the table is located further below.) or something to that effect, that would solve the problem. Thanks for considering. — Alalch Emis 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

This is in the hands of AN now, I thought someone uninvolved like you who posted there recently might immediately react. — Alalch Emis 23:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for all your help on the Reference Desks, in general. The Wikilink that you added to the discussion on Swearing On a Bible [7] is to a disambig page. I believe it should be United States Capitol. Cheers. -- Thomprod ( talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

-- Jayron 32 14:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

You also commented concisely on my first question. I am currently "working" on Lawrence Blum, err, de:Lawrence Blum. Fossa _?! 20:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Excellent. Good luck with expanding it. Unfortunately, I don't know much German, nor am I very familiar with Mr. Blum. But it looks like a worthy project! -- Jayron 32 20:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Catch (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drew Pearson.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations!

-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm VERY afraid of asking this question on the Wikipedia Reference Desks for fear of me getting banned/blocked from posting there, so I figure that I might as well ask this question on your talk page, given that you're an American and all. Mitt Romney recently proposed a child allowance:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22280404/mitt-romney-child-allowance-tax-credit-biden

If Romney's plan–or something similar–will actually pass, will it become SIGNIFICANTLY easier for poor and needy custodial parents to get financial aid from the United States government without them actually being compelled to seek child support from their children's non-custodial parents? I know that seeking child support is a requirement for going on welfare here in the United States of America as a result of Bill Clinton's welfare reform, so I wonder if Romney's plan is actually going to change anything in this regard, especially if it will abolish TANF or make TANF (near-)irrelevant. Futurist110 ( talk) 07:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I have not ever had need to access those support systems, so I am not very familiar with their workings. Also, I have not reviewed the pending legislation. In general, I'm in favor of the government doing the most benefit for the most citizens, so it sounds like an interesting proposal, but I don't know enough about either the existing laws nor about how the new law will interact with those existing laws, to be able to answer your question reliably. -- Jayron 32 12:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cedric Maxwell

added a link pointing to Kevin McHale

Robert Parish

added a link pointing to Centenary College

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved ( phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist ( phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

I didn't mean to lambast you. I just interpreted Nishidan's comment differently than how I thought you had interpreted it. Sorry about that. Peace. --- Sluzzelin talk 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

It's all good. My intention was to remind people that no one should ever start AN or ANI threads. Like, really. Ever. For any reason. Don't do it. Instead, just fix the article and move on. It clearly has had the opposite effect. Someone should have shut that whole thread down long ago. Someone should shut it down now. It was not ever going to produce a useful discussion. -- Jayron 32 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I agree :-) Happy Friday! --- Sluzzelin talk 14:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. ( T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. ( T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.

I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.) For convenience I'll put links to the edit notice page and the talk page.

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Joe Biden sexual assault allegation - Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~ Awilley ( talk) 00:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

No, I think that one probably needs to stay. American politics articles are a constant source of bad-faith rudeness, and we need to maintain a sense of decorum on those articles. Your better route is to get ArbCom to revisit WP:AMPOL2. If you can get that case amended to remove the editing restrictions remedy, then you probably have something. -- Jayron 32 11:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

OK, that's fair. Looking at the talk page, it does seem to be more active than most of the articles I've been reviewing. Would you consider tweaking the sanctions to match the parent article Joe Biden? 1RR is turned off on that article, leaving only the BRD sanction. (The 1RR has been gone from Donald Trump and Joe Biden since November, and I think it has given people a bit more leeway to deal with unhelpful drive-by editing, while still mostly preventing people from engaging in revert wars.) ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I think the content I just undid needs a revdel. [8] ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

(tps) It's buried deeper than that now. DMacks ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Danke! ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

... thanks. -- Skews Peas ( talk) 22:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Please review these captions. (See also Malice Mad Gab and Zipper)

There are about a dozen other diffs where Ken has "improved" all the non-improvements; please don't touch those, as a testament to ... never mind. -- Skews Peas ( talk) 00:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Maybe you should, you know, stop reverting and instead start a discussion somewhere to see who has consensus for which version is better. -- Jayron 32 11:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, you'll note that in the initial discussion, I said that you shouldn't do what you did. So, like, don't do that. -- Jayron 32 11:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you made a lot of improvements to Louis III of France, which I had worked on for a long time. I just thought I ought to say thanks, since now the article is way better than it was when I stopped doing things to it! xdude ( talk) 11:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply

No problem! This is how Wikipedia gets better. Everyone helps out a little bit! -- Jayron 32 12:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gibson Les Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bigsby.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing that typo on the exit numbers on Massachusetts Route 213. Been editing a good number of pages in lieu of MassDOT's exit renumbering statewide... running on little sleep as I must have missed that typo!

Fwydriver405 ( talk) 06:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. Glad to be of service! -- Jayron 32 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

	Gratitude of the Kakapo
	These lil birds and I want to thank you for bringing a close to that discussion at RSN. "Going nowhere fast" was an understatement! Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 16:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Tnx for adding me in your article Ujjwal 20 ( talk) 17:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Emir of Wikipedia was apparently trying to archive the discussion and ended up deleting parts of it, including your close. The fragmented discussion is now open again, and commenting has resumed. Just FYI. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Generalrelative, I reverted myself and archived with the close did I not? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) It looks like they fixed it. -- Jayron 32 17:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Emir of Wikipedia: No, you bodged it up the second time as well. I've reverted the archiving. -- Jayron 32 17:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Can you have a go at archiving it please? That is taking up too much space for something that should not really be there in my view. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Generalrelative ( talk) 17:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) @ Emir of Wikipedia: It will be archived when the correct time comes; the discussion was JUST closed, and editors who participated in it will be looking for it to understand why it was closed. Archived discussions should be left up for a reasonable amount of time so that editors who are interested in the closing statement have time to review it. The page is on an auto-archive schedule, and it will go away when it is supposed to. -- Jayron 32 17:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I personally think a reasonable time would be less than the auto-archive schedule, but I understand people have different views. Am signing off this discussion now. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Emir of Wikipedia: Regardless, 2 hours is not a reasonable time in the other direction. -- Jayron 32 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for taking out time to enlighten me on Wikipedia's paid editing policy. I look forward to more edits. Bibihans ( talk)Bibihans — Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

You're very welcome! If you have any other questions, just let me know, and I'll do my best to answer them. -- Jayron 32 13:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Killers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bonaroo.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply

this edit made me laugh loud enough that I had to explain what was happening to my kids. But the thing is, this guys is a pretty new editor, who almost certainly doesn't understand how things work around here.

Do you think I could ask that you go ahead and close that thread with an admonishment to return to the talk page and actually discuss the issue? I'd be more than happy to help this person out, if they would just be receptive to it. Hell, I've posted a few times to talk, hoping they'd notice and jump back in since this started. I never really got the chance to explain why the section I removed was not appropriate to that article, because they jumped from discussion to edit warring to forum shopping so fast.

FWIW, the content was a subsection which was almost as long as the entire rest of the article, and covered a rather minor controversy in the grand scheme of things, but one which right-wing political pundits tried unsuccessfully to turn into a big deal. And rather than being properly placed in the history section, it was shoehorned into the accuracy section, despite it not saying anything about the accuracy of the site. In short, it was an NPOV nightmare. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I actually closed it just before you posted here, but I'll go back and add a bit of guidance. -- Jayron 32 00:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I really appreciate that. Hopefully they'll show back up on talk to work it out, instead of just moving on with some burnout. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vinnie Colaiuta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sting.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Doobie Brothers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rock and China Grove.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply