Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context. Since you had some involvement with the List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 00:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
Hi, I notice you're involved in an edit war on High Speed 2. I've not blocked you fully, and I've tried to avoid protecting the article, so instead I've blocked you from editing the article for 72 hours. I hope, in the interim, you may discuss with the other party and reach agreement on how to proceed. If you do reach agreement before the 72 hours, I'll unblock both parties and allow you both to return to editing. Nick ( talk) 14:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation I think you closed it incorrectly, at best it was no consensus. You also applied the other page's logic incorrectly to that page as well. Further, that other page's move was also marked as no consensus. Jordan occupied the area from 47-67, that has nothing to do with the other page which is annexation. Please undo the close and move. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Sceptre, back on the 31 December 2005, you were the editor who left the greeting on my talkpage when I registered an account. I thought I would drop by and see what you are up to. I'll take the opportunity to return your greeting, more than fourteen years late. ←
ZScarpia 20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. 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. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On 20 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karen (slang), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the most common stereotypes of a Karen is asking to "speak to the manager"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karen (slang). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Karen (slang)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Good move at Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. As is typical on WP, we spent hours debating something, which was effectively changed by someone with clarity in seconds. NickCT ( talk) 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
You recently closed my move request at Talk:Tom Collins (rugby) as "not moved". I admit the page should not be moved to Thomas John Collins, but I still think the current situation doesn't work, as "rugby" vs. "rugby union" is not a clear enough disambiguation between two people who lived a century apart. I quite like this suggestion from User:Necrothesp:
Can I make another move request? JIP | Talk 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
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) 18:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events
Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports
March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).
You've recently closed the move request at "Coup d'état" as no consensus. Although there are similar number of users in support and opposition, the oppose points do not make reference/are in opposition to Wikipedia policy. Per WP:RMNAC, "arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight". Thus, I think that the closure should be reevaluated. -- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Please explain more fully your closure and its reasoning? Here: Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I won't challenge the move, because I partially agree with some of what you said about the decision, and your close will make it an easy enough move back if there's a conviction. Nevertheless, it should probably have waited for an administrator close. Geogene ( talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sceptre. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Senedd".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo ( talk) 08:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have brought your incorrect non-admin close to the Administrators Noticeboard for review: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Incorrect_non-admin_closure. The Banner talk 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
It is not permissible to engage in highly personalized WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior [2] on Wikipedia, especially over socio-political viewpoints, and most especially over ones covered by discretionary sanctions, as is human sexuality and gender, broadly construed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
You've messed up the page move here, the article now at Jordi Roca has a corresponding talk page at Talk:Jordi Roca I Fontané, and the talk page of Talk:Jordi Roca relates to the article now at Jordi Roca (footballer). FWIW I also think your close was bad, given the nominator agreed there was no PRIMARYTOPIC. Giant Snowman 21:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:42 (Doctor Who).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) 02:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sceptre ( talk), I was wondering if you would please review and possibly implement a template-protected edit request I have made over at Module talk:Gridiron color#Template-protected edit request on 24 August 2020? I have tried asking other editors, such as Eagles247 & Euryalus, but Eagles247 will not reply to the message I left on his talk page, and Euryalus has said (and I quote) "Thanks for the offer but I'm not enough of an expert in either template design or football colour codes to offer a very informed opinion." Please help me? So far, no other editor whom I've reached out to has replied to this topic. Any help you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
On 26 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Polio eradication, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 04:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, because there are very few Wikipedia left that participated in the MfD above, I request that you make a few remarks about the decentralization of Esperanza. They can be about what ever you want: why Esperanza was deleted, what made the project so bad, the MfD itself. These remarks may be used in a future Signpost article. Please make your remarks here. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 22:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The talk page at Siding still has a Move discussion progress message. I'm not sure if this should just be deleted? Or should it be updated to point to the closed discussion? The current link is wrong due to the move. Thanks. MB 15:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you are doing well. I saw you closed this RM, and requested speedy deletion of target redirect under G6/db move. I have seen you performing page-swaps/round robin moves, so this confused me a little. May I ask why you requested speedy instead of performing page swap? Just curious. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. One of your arguments in your closing comments was "... but there are always exceptions, for example, the 1950s Indy 500s ...". In reality, this doesn't seem to be an exception at all: all the Indy 500s are named within the same convention as the other races (i.e. "[Year] [Name of the race]"). Please note that in your closing argument you misconstrued what you thought the convention was ("[Year] [Location] Grand Prix") vs. what it actually is ("[Year] [Name of the race]"). "Name of the race" for most races indeed includes the "Grand Prix" part – so your hunch on what the convention was was understandable. But if you consider the actual convention ("[Year] [Name of the race]") you can see that all articles about the World Championship races until 2020 (including Indy 500, for which "Name of the race" is "Indianapolis 500") fall neatly into this pattern without exception – and the first and only exception (unnecessarily) created was the 70th Anniversary GP in 2020. cherkash ( talk) 22:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Would you please consider reverting your move of Glenn Martin (coach) and reopening and relisting the RM, especially since you moved it to a title other than the original proposal without any explanation? With only two commenters, including me, I don't see how anyone could say there was a consensus for that move, especially when considering the several previous move requests that resulted in the article being titled Glenn Martin (coach). The title you chose is especially bad because this person was affiliated with multiple sports, with baseball possibly predominant, as discussed in previous RMs. I'm also moving back Abe Martin (American football) to its former title, as that was contrary to the previous RMs for that article. Station1 ( talk) 04:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for following WP:RMCI and WP:CONSENSUS in closing this RM - instead of going by a !vote count you actually weighted !votes based on their basis in policy and guidelines. And you explained the reasoning in detail. Bravo! — В²C ☎ 22:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The closure was inappropriate because it enforced the exception as the rule even when the local consensus was against it. Even the passage at WP:INCDAB says that "the threshold for identifying one is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation". That threshold was not even met here. Furthermore, part of the opposition was due to recentism, and that was ignored in spite of the film's high-water mark not even a year ago. In essence, all opposition arguments were ignored. Just because Thriller was allowed doesn't mean all second-most-important topics should be more ambiguous. Let me know your response, and I will quote it at WP:MR if needed. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I’ve tweaked the wording of the general disambiguation rule at WP:AT to explicitly incorporate PDAB:
However, I hasten to add that the previous wording already incorporated INCDAB implicitly because of linking “disambiguated” to WP:D which includes INCDAB (and refers to PDAB). But with my tweaks it’s more clear. — В²C ☎ 19:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that you are the closer of Thriller and now this, both of which ignored both numerical and policy-based arguments which should have clearly left the result as "No consensus", it seems to me that these closes seek to implement a particular agenda on your part to see PDAB implemented using much softer requirements. I advise you to reverse this close. -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This is also being currently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Incomplete disambiguation matter. I feel we should just pick one place. El Millo ( talk) 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Parasite (2019 film). 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. Netoholic @ 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020. Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated! Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Sceptre Please can you move these pages Bigg Boss Bangla and Bigg Boss Marathi Bigg Boss Marathi 1 Bigg Boss Marathi 2 Bigg Boss Kannada as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:64:8013:400:8bb7:9726:cb47 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I recognise you tried hard to blow away the chaff, but I cannot read the review discussion any way other than Overturn. I have included an extended rationale in my close. Sorry, I recognise that you did your best in the face of some pretty dogmatic arguments at the RM. Guy ( help! - typo?) 12:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, any chance you could relist the discussion? It's been something I've been considering proposing myself for a while, but in this case I completely missed it. I'd have thought with !votes and arguments so split, it at least merits another week of relisting to thrash out what's really going on? As for my opinion on the matter, six months ago I would have thought it ridiculous to move to "COVID-19", but at this stage I would definitely argue the contrary if I have a chance to do so in the RM. It's now become so overwhelmingly the term used evedrywhere, that I don't think MOS:ACRO really applies. Like NASA, the article should be housed at the acronym because nobody ever says "Coronavirus disease 2019". Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 10:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
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) 18:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Although your DYK nom was approved, the wording of the DYK hook is being discussed. Your input is requested. (note: the article has been renamed to Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination) JGHowes talk 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Coronavirus disease 2019. 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. -- Calidum 01:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
hi Sceptre
Your userpage is categorised in Category:Wikipedians who use Safari, which has recently been moved to Category:Wikipedians who use Safari (web browser) .. leaving your page alone in the category, contrary to WP:REDNOT.
This appears to be implemented via User:Sceptre/modules/Userpage.css, which is protected. Please can you fix it?
Thanks -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 七. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 19#七 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim ( talk) 21:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! -- 73.202.53.15 ( talk) 04:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
On 6 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the date of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination – September 26, 2020 – was the nearest to a presidential election in U.S. history? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Howdy. I wasn't aware of the embarrassing results of the RMs, which call for the page moves of the 2020 US Senate election & special election in Georgia. You'll have to undo my reversion, as I don't have the tools to do so. GoodDay ( talk) 14:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020. Current and upcoming events
Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news
Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I popped back in to see the status of the renaming discussion for 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but I see you closed it, and it's now archived at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 3#Requested move 8 January 2021. You mention a "moratorium", but I see no mention of a mortarium on the main talk page. There was a previous renaming, and the discussion at AN that lead to the early closure is at WP:AN#Administrator needed to close high-visibility, time-sensitive requested move where the discussion appears to be that it wasn't eligible for a SNOW close, though that doing an interim move and allowed for a more focused round of discussion on further changes. However, you are blocking the more focused discussion. Normally I'd argue there is no rush, but as the word "storm" seems to be an insurrectionist code word, then surely there should be an immediate discussion of this issue? (and perhaps there have been other discussions of this ... the debate seem to have been extensive since last time I looked). Nfitz ( talk) 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre, I found you in the Category:Redirectionist Wikipedians. You may like the new userbox {{ User redirectionist}}. Have fun! Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your closing. We need to let the process play out until the community can decide on a title. I plan on taking it to move review, if you do not revert. Casprings ( talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
On 18 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Magufuli, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru ( talk) 14:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
On 10 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Grand National, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 21:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.
We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.
More information, and registration details, at QW2021.-- Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#User talk:Sceptre/Archive 58. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
StarshipSLS ( Talk), ( My Contributions) 15:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Please would you edit User:Sceptre/modules/boxes.css and update User en-gb to User en-GB ? Your user page is currently populating Category:User en-gb, which was moved per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_4#Category:User_en-ca. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box. Current events
Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here. June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June. Drive and blitz reports
January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. ( full results) February Blitz: 15 editors completed 48 copy edits totalling 142,788 words. ( full results) March Drive: 29 editors completed 215 copy edits totalling 407,736 words. ( full results) April Blitz: 12 editors completed 23 copy edits totalling 56,574 words. ( full results) May Drive: 29 editors completed 356 copy edits totalling 479,013 words. ( full results) Other news
Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu and Twofingered Typist, and from member Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for uploading File:Fillmore!.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) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The Requested Move of the page Uyghur Genocide actually had a weak consensus to move the page (10 users supported the move, 8 opposed and 1 weak oppose). Can you enlighten me with the reason why you decided to close the discussion and in turn push the ruling in favor of the minority? Dazaif ( talk) 23:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
You closed RM discussions Talk:George Russell (racing driver) and Talk:Gregory Helms in contrast with Talk:Uyghur genocide. I point out two. 1. Please remove the {{ requested move/dated}}. 2. Please sign your posts. Thanks. Sawol ( talk) 04:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In your close of the
1989 Tiananmen Square protests requested move, there is no consensus to move. the !votes are nearly evenly split with one more oppose than support; a clear no consensus outcome. Your closing statement does not address this at all, and reads more like a supervote. A no consensus close would have been appropriate, though it would have been better left for an admin, being a contentious topic. You also failed to add a {{
RMpmc}}
to the close.--
2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:48B8:DB9F:123D:B5B0 (
talk) 03:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021. Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{ cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I am really new to wikipedia and still reading up on policies and such, but I noticed, on the Bryan Danielson page someone reinstated the redirect, does that mess with the speedy deletion process and making the move happen? I apologize if I am bothering you OmniusM ( talk) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Nvm another person went and took care of it. I a sorry for bothering you. OmniusM ( talk) 22:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021. Current and upcoming events
Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before " Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news
It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thanks for taking the time to go through a really long discussion and closing it. I see you've closed other difficult discussions before. Your work is appreciated. VR talk 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Sceptre,
I am following WP:MR and I am bringing this discussion to your Talk Page. You have recently moved Sexual slavery in Islam to History of concubinage in the Muslim world, but there is clearly no consensus for that (8 votes in favor of the new title, against plenty of alternatives and 8 votes explicitly against the new title, including that of one admin, Andrewa – other editors were Grufo, Iraniangal777, buidhe, BilledMammal, Lambrusquiño, Mcphurphy, Usernamekiran ( #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8).
According to WP:RMNAC,
Non-admin closes normally require that:
- The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days).
- No more than a few associated subpages need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talkpage archives. (Administrators and page movers have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click.)
Both points are were not met in your non-admin closure, so I would like to ask you to review your decision or explain here what brought you to move the page despite the necessary requirements were missing. -- Grufo ( talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
You closed the RM at Talk:Joondalup railway line as not moved without further explanation. What is the reason that you didn't move these pages? The vast majority didn't object the removal of the word railway and those who opposed the move did so because of the capitalization. The variant Joondalup line was one that the majority could agree on. -- PhiH ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Could you please consider reopening Talk:River Butcher#Requested move 23 November 2021 and reverting the moves you made in consequence of the close?
The close seems to be based on your applying WP:DEADNAME. But the closer is not at liberty to add new arguments of their own. See wp:closing#Consensus.
My suggestion is that having reopened the RM, you then !vote to move, citing this new argument. Andrewa ( talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of River Butcher. 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. Andrewa ( talk) 02:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The page "Kiev Day and Night" was moved to Kyiv Day and Night with majority vote directed by latter editors except Exlevan. Depending on vote rationale, the editor who opened the move discussion (Exlevan) must fully sure his decision on the move, but later becomes ambivalent by saying "I'll leave it up to the closer to decide whether this constitutes a proper English source" after I added an English source that supports Kiev Day and Night. In this case, the move should be revoked because Exlevan doesn't show outright support. Regardless of Kyiv/Kiev consensus, we are in English Wikipedia and words should use in English language usage. So, as I flagged an English source still exists in the article [3], reference is very important to support each statement, but the existence of this source is unimportant when the article moved to Kyiv. Thus, I considered this situation unfair judgement. Accordingly, I want to restore Kiev. What do you think? The Supermind ( talk) 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The Newsbeezer is reliable source and the highlight text appeared as evident for assertion. The Supermind ( talk) 06:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I started FA review on D. B. Cooper. You participated in original FAC subpage, so I invite you for input there. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre. Please do not mark edits as minor which add new content, or especially which re-add removed content, as you did in this edit. The edit summary was similarly misleading as most of your edit couldn't be described as copyediting. Thanks. A7V2 ( talk) 08:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This close [4] raises WP:SUPERVOTE concerns. Your stated reason that the article is, in your opinion, "terrible" is not a summary of the discussion. Nor is your assertion that it is a "coatrack". Furthermore, you stated without evidence that "experienced editors" are "almost all" voting one way. As a starting point for discussion, I am requesting that you do an analysis of the edit counts of users who voted each way. If your analysis does not back up your statement, you might want to reconsider. Lastly, your nomination at AfD is further evidence that you have a strong opinion about the article. As you are aware, a discussion closer should be neutral. Adoring nanny ( talk) 21:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
serious crimes or mistakethat China may be covering up (on the origins question). As a closer, you should have summarized the difference between the outbreak cover-up and the origins cover-up in the discussion, and in the article. Where are we going to the AP leaked documents "game of chess"? It doesn't fit into misinformation. Please undo your close and read the discussion properly. Francesco espo ( talk) 23:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Specter, with all due respect, I cannot understand the justification you’ve written on your talk page above. Simply having a high edit count or having been on Wikipedia for a while doesn’t make one’s arguments automatically stronger—consensus is not ascertained by counting heads of experienced users, but instead by evaluating the strength of all the arguments presented in light of WP:PAG.
The particular part about WP:COATRACK also befuddles me. Wouldn’t this be a reason to limit the scope of the article to when RS report that an actual cover-up occurred, rather than changing the scope of the acticle to include every single allegation of a Chinese COVID-19 coverup that has been reported on by a reliable source or two?
I had examined the discussion and I had thought about closing it, but decided against it for reasons of not having time to write out a four-paragraph no-consensus-to-move close. But I really do not understand how that discussion resulted in an affirmative consensus to move. I would respectfully request that you undo your closure and either allow further discussion for seven additional days (to make consensus more clear) or to allow a panel to close it. If not, I would be happy to open a move review as an uninvolved page mover who did not participate in the discussion. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this move request, you closed it as "move" but I found Quail Island (New Zealand) sitting there under its old disambiguation. I assumed this was an omission and have moved (swapped) it myself. Just in case there's something that I overlooked, here's a heads up. Schwede 66 00:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of History of concubinage in the Muslim world. 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. Grufo ( talk) 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of China COVID-19 cover-up allegations. 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.
My apologies for the late notification. Adoring nanny ( talk) 22:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:High Speed 3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the history for Checkers has now been merged into Draughts, so you can complete the move now. Thanks. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Your close decision is risible. You have allowed yourself to be duped by a bunch of football fanatics with a narrow view of the world. Nothing material has changed in the period covered by 5 previous declined requests. This was always likely to be controversial - maybe it should have been closed by an experienced Admin. And before you kick-off and make PA accusations, I have read your user page headline. Leaky caldron ( talk) 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
---
Hi Sceptre
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how you would see a consensus to move from the discussion in question. There are two competing policy arguments, and roughly equal voices in each direction, so that is a textbook "no consensus". Please could you reconsider? I didn't !vote in the discussion, but I have participated in previous discussions and am firmly opposed to the move that has been made. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 16:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to state that I was quite surprised to see the RfM closed as a consensus to move. I voted no, so I have that bias, but the closure seems not to align with the statements and the votes. I know it is not a vote count, but 7 oppose to 6 support without any indication of one side having a substantially stronger argument hardly seems like a consensus to move.-- Cerebral726 ( talk) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your close of this RM, you state that "The consensus of this discussion is that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English". However, that is not my reading of the discussion; several editors, including myself, disagreed with the claim that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English, and there was no evidence presented for the claim that it is the commonly used term, while there was evidence presented against that claim; could you clarify how you assessed this consensus?
I would also note that you don't address the WP:COMMONALITY exception to WP:ENGVAR; could you clarify how you considered this? BilledMammal ( talk) 02:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. In this case, that would be "European settlers", which is accepted inside and outside New Zealand, compared to "Pākehā", which is only used in New Zealand - and even in New Zealand the evidence suggests that the preferred name is "European settlers".
An editor has asked for a Move review of Pākehā settlers. 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. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I would like you to reconsider your closure of this move discussion. Your reference to BLP (which wasn't mentioned at all in the discussion), give it the appearance of a supervote. Also, you said "MOS:GENDERID is the overriding policy, not WP:COMMONNAME", but MOS:GENDERID is a guideline not a policy. Perhaps you could just make your comments into a !vote. St Anselm ( talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Sceptre Thank you for for closing and also saying something about the accusations! It's pretty disheartening that editors consider respecting trans people and relying on their identification some kind of violation of WP policy, but I'm glad to see you're helping manage institutional bias here. TheTranarchist ( talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
Please explain how you took my comments (and a support that was then rescinded after them) into consideration in your close, which doesn't mention them. They were specifically about putting her dignity, and trans dignity in general, at the focus. I understand that you found my views "interesting ... food for thought", but I don't understand how you actually considered them in light of other policies and guidelines, especially when they weren't discussed by other !voters. How is a forcible move to Gloria appropriate for someone who used three different names in the week prior to her death, and for whose preferences we actually don't know, as I explained? Why is a close appropriate instead of keeping it open for more time for discussion? Urve ( talk) 22:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Gregory Hemingway. 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. St Anselm ( talk) 22:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
If it's all the same to you, I would prefer it if this was allowed to run for a longer period, a week seems a tad on the short side. Thanks. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Spectre,
I was wondering how you assessed the consensus for this move request? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that my move request was closed for incorrect reasons. As User:BilledMammal stated, articles cannot start with a lower case letter. But that was not the purpose of the move request, which was requesting that the disambiguation would be moved to all upper-case. The page would still start with an uppercase letter, but it would be shifted to lowercase using Template:Lowercase title as it currently is now. Please reopen the move request, thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Sceptre,
On your close at Talk:Schön_scandal, which only showed up to me now for some reason... I recognize that it's a tricky close, and I doubt your review was so invalid as to be overturned at MR or the like. That said, I was wondering if you would reconsider anyway. I'd like to point out two notable issues:
I already said my case on the merits, which is why I'm sticking to "procedural" issues above. That said, I think they're real, and think this is a case where "no consensus" if that's the close should still result in a reversion to the original title, as it should have in the 2014 RM. SnowFire ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your closure of Talk:Discord_(software)#Requested_move_2_March_2022.
I count 19 editors supporting and 9 editors opposing. That is a clear majority, and not a close one.
The arguments are not just page views and clickstream versus long-term significance. Supporters also made several other relevant points, such as: that neither the goddess Eris nor the music theory technical concept of dissonance is mainly referred to or would be searched by "discord"; WP:NOTDICTIONARY; and the dissimilarities with apple (which has an encyclopedia article) and the similarity with Hearthstone. Overall, I think the support side made a stronger case on the merits. (Indeed, several participants switched their position from oppose to support during the RM, which is a sign that a case was convincing.)
Even if you disagree and you think that the arguments from both sides were roughly equal on the merits, then if the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it
(
Wikipedia:Closing discussions). If some people gave more weight to some policies and one part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and other people gave more weight to another, then the 19 editors have the rough consensus over the 9.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Sceptre - I had come by to ask for your reconsideration here, and see that Adumbrativus made essentially every argument I'd come up with, although I count 20 !supports including the nom. Seeing your response to Adumbrativus, I'm still confused. There were only two strong !opposes and two weak !supports. Even if you discount half of a weak !vote and count a strong !vote as 1 1/2, that still is 19:10 in favor. Please consider a re-open if not a full reversal, in light of the quote from WP:Closing discussions. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Discord (software). 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. Adumbrativus ( talk) 06:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 18,998 views (791.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work! |
Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021. Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators. January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. ( details) February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. ( details) March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. ( details) April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now! Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I know you’re trying to help, but if it were me I’d take a break from closing discussions. You’ve got a really abnormal volume of complaints above (5+?). In one of the move reviews, a sizeable number of participants had issues with your general closing of discussions and one said they were damaging to the RM process. In the other move review, your judgement was less attacked but honestly, at minimum, the discussion wasn’t ripe for closure (it was still actively being discussed and you closed it promptly after 7 days, in the opposite direction of the flow of comments), and your response to the editors’ concerns above wasn’t ideal. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Nine years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/d has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the page to List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champions. Not sure why it was rejected since it was a technical request. The person who "denied" the request was in the wrong. Thank you again. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 05:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can. Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Baffle☿gab 03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context. Since you had some involvement with the List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 00:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
Hi, I notice you're involved in an edit war on High Speed 2. I've not blocked you fully, and I've tried to avoid protecting the article, so instead I've blocked you from editing the article for 72 hours. I hope, in the interim, you may discuss with the other party and reach agreement on how to proceed. If you do reach agreement before the 72 hours, I'll unblock both parties and allow you both to return to editing. Nick ( talk) 14:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation I think you closed it incorrectly, at best it was no consensus. You also applied the other page's logic incorrectly to that page as well. Further, that other page's move was also marked as no consensus. Jordan occupied the area from 47-67, that has nothing to do with the other page which is annexation. Please undo the close and move. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Sceptre, back on the 31 December 2005, you were the editor who left the greeting on my talkpage when I registered an account. I thought I would drop by and see what you are up to. I'll take the opportunity to return your greeting, more than fourteen years late. ←
ZScarpia 20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. 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. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On 20 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karen (slang), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the most common stereotypes of a Karen is asking to "speak to the manager"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karen (slang). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Karen (slang)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Good move at Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. As is typical on WP, we spent hours debating something, which was effectively changed by someone with clarity in seconds. NickCT ( talk) 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
You recently closed my move request at Talk:Tom Collins (rugby) as "not moved". I admit the page should not be moved to Thomas John Collins, but I still think the current situation doesn't work, as "rugby" vs. "rugby union" is not a clear enough disambiguation between two people who lived a century apart. I quite like this suggestion from User:Necrothesp:
Can I make another move request? JIP | Talk 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
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) 18:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events
Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports
March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).
You've recently closed the move request at "Coup d'état" as no consensus. Although there are similar number of users in support and opposition, the oppose points do not make reference/are in opposition to Wikipedia policy. Per WP:RMNAC, "arguments supported by directly relevant policy and guidelines are given more weight". Thus, I think that the closure should be reevaluated. -- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Please explain more fully your closure and its reasoning? Here: Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I won't challenge the move, because I partially agree with some of what you said about the decision, and your close will make it an easy enough move back if there's a conviction. Nevertheless, it should probably have waited for an administrator close. Geogene ( talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sceptre. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Senedd".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo ( talk) 08:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have brought your incorrect non-admin close to the Administrators Noticeboard for review: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Incorrect_non-admin_closure. The Banner talk 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
It is not permissible to engage in highly personalized WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior [2] on Wikipedia, especially over socio-political viewpoints, and most especially over ones covered by discretionary sanctions, as is human sexuality and gender, broadly construed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
You've messed up the page move here, the article now at Jordi Roca has a corresponding talk page at Talk:Jordi Roca I Fontané, and the talk page of Talk:Jordi Roca relates to the article now at Jordi Roca (footballer). FWIW I also think your close was bad, given the nominator agreed there was no PRIMARYTOPIC. Giant Snowman 21:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:42 (Doctor Who).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) 02:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sceptre ( talk), I was wondering if you would please review and possibly implement a template-protected edit request I have made over at Module talk:Gridiron color#Template-protected edit request on 24 August 2020? I have tried asking other editors, such as Eagles247 & Euryalus, but Eagles247 will not reply to the message I left on his talk page, and Euryalus has said (and I quote) "Thanks for the offer but I'm not enough of an expert in either template design or football colour codes to offer a very informed opinion." Please help me? So far, no other editor whom I've reached out to has replied to this topic. Any help you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
On 26 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Polio eradication, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 04:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, because there are very few Wikipedia left that participated in the MfD above, I request that you make a few remarks about the decentralization of Esperanza. They can be about what ever you want: why Esperanza was deleted, what made the project so bad, the MfD itself. These remarks may be used in a future Signpost article. Please make your remarks here. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 22:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The talk page at Siding still has a Move discussion progress message. I'm not sure if this should just be deleted? Or should it be updated to point to the closed discussion? The current link is wrong due to the move. Thanks. MB 15:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you are doing well. I saw you closed this RM, and requested speedy deletion of target redirect under G6/db move. I have seen you performing page-swaps/round robin moves, so this confused me a little. May I ask why you requested speedy instead of performing page swap? Just curious. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. One of your arguments in your closing comments was "... but there are always exceptions, for example, the 1950s Indy 500s ...". In reality, this doesn't seem to be an exception at all: all the Indy 500s are named within the same convention as the other races (i.e. "[Year] [Name of the race]"). Please note that in your closing argument you misconstrued what you thought the convention was ("[Year] [Location] Grand Prix") vs. what it actually is ("[Year] [Name of the race]"). "Name of the race" for most races indeed includes the "Grand Prix" part – so your hunch on what the convention was was understandable. But if you consider the actual convention ("[Year] [Name of the race]") you can see that all articles about the World Championship races until 2020 (including Indy 500, for which "Name of the race" is "Indianapolis 500") fall neatly into this pattern without exception – and the first and only exception (unnecessarily) created was the 70th Anniversary GP in 2020. cherkash ( talk) 22:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Would you please consider reverting your move of Glenn Martin (coach) and reopening and relisting the RM, especially since you moved it to a title other than the original proposal without any explanation? With only two commenters, including me, I don't see how anyone could say there was a consensus for that move, especially when considering the several previous move requests that resulted in the article being titled Glenn Martin (coach). The title you chose is especially bad because this person was affiliated with multiple sports, with baseball possibly predominant, as discussed in previous RMs. I'm also moving back Abe Martin (American football) to its former title, as that was contrary to the previous RMs for that article. Station1 ( talk) 04:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for following WP:RMCI and WP:CONSENSUS in closing this RM - instead of going by a !vote count you actually weighted !votes based on their basis in policy and guidelines. And you explained the reasoning in detail. Bravo! — В²C ☎ 22:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The closure was inappropriate because it enforced the exception as the rule even when the local consensus was against it. Even the passage at WP:INCDAB says that "the threshold for identifying one is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation". That threshold was not even met here. Furthermore, part of the opposition was due to recentism, and that was ignored in spite of the film's high-water mark not even a year ago. In essence, all opposition arguments were ignored. Just because Thriller was allowed doesn't mean all second-most-important topics should be more ambiguous. Let me know your response, and I will quote it at WP:MR if needed. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I’ve tweaked the wording of the general disambiguation rule at WP:AT to explicitly incorporate PDAB:
However, I hasten to add that the previous wording already incorporated INCDAB implicitly because of linking “disambiguated” to WP:D which includes INCDAB (and refers to PDAB). But with my tweaks it’s more clear. — В²C ☎ 19:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that you are the closer of Thriller and now this, both of which ignored both numerical and policy-based arguments which should have clearly left the result as "No consensus", it seems to me that these closes seek to implement a particular agenda on your part to see PDAB implemented using much softer requirements. I advise you to reverse this close. -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This is also being currently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Incomplete disambiguation matter. I feel we should just pick one place. El Millo ( talk) 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Parasite (2019 film). 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. Netoholic @ 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020. Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated! Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Sceptre Please can you move these pages Bigg Boss Bangla and Bigg Boss Marathi Bigg Boss Marathi 1 Bigg Boss Marathi 2 Bigg Boss Kannada as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:64:8013:400:8bb7:9726:cb47 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I recognise you tried hard to blow away the chaff, but I cannot read the review discussion any way other than Overturn. I have included an extended rationale in my close. Sorry, I recognise that you did your best in the face of some pretty dogmatic arguments at the RM. Guy ( help! - typo?) 12:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, any chance you could relist the discussion? It's been something I've been considering proposing myself for a while, but in this case I completely missed it. I'd have thought with !votes and arguments so split, it at least merits another week of relisting to thrash out what's really going on? As for my opinion on the matter, six months ago I would have thought it ridiculous to move to "COVID-19", but at this stage I would definitely argue the contrary if I have a chance to do so in the RM. It's now become so overwhelmingly the term used evedrywhere, that I don't think MOS:ACRO really applies. Like NASA, the article should be housed at the acronym because nobody ever says "Coronavirus disease 2019". Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 10:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
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) 18:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Although your DYK nom was approved, the wording of the DYK hook is being discussed. Your input is requested. (note: the article has been renamed to Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination) JGHowes talk 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Coronavirus disease 2019. 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. -- Calidum 01:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
hi Sceptre
Your userpage is categorised in Category:Wikipedians who use Safari, which has recently been moved to Category:Wikipedians who use Safari (web browser) .. leaving your page alone in the category, contrary to WP:REDNOT.
This appears to be implemented via User:Sceptre/modules/Userpage.css, which is protected. Please can you fix it?
Thanks -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 七. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 19#七 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim ( talk) 21:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! -- 73.202.53.15 ( talk) 04:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
On 6 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the date of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination – September 26, 2020 – was the nearest to a presidential election in U.S. history? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Howdy. I wasn't aware of the embarrassing results of the RMs, which call for the page moves of the 2020 US Senate election & special election in Georgia. You'll have to undo my reversion, as I don't have the tools to do so. GoodDay ( talk) 14:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020. Current and upcoming events
Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news
Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I popped back in to see the status of the renaming discussion for 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but I see you closed it, and it's now archived at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 3#Requested move 8 January 2021. You mention a "moratorium", but I see no mention of a mortarium on the main talk page. There was a previous renaming, and the discussion at AN that lead to the early closure is at WP:AN#Administrator needed to close high-visibility, time-sensitive requested move where the discussion appears to be that it wasn't eligible for a SNOW close, though that doing an interim move and allowed for a more focused round of discussion on further changes. However, you are blocking the more focused discussion. Normally I'd argue there is no rush, but as the word "storm" seems to be an insurrectionist code word, then surely there should be an immediate discussion of this issue? (and perhaps there have been other discussions of this ... the debate seem to have been extensive since last time I looked). Nfitz ( talk) 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre, I found you in the Category:Redirectionist Wikipedians. You may like the new userbox {{ User redirectionist}}. Have fun! Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your closing. We need to let the process play out until the community can decide on a title. I plan on taking it to move review, if you do not revert. Casprings ( talk) 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
On 18 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Magufuli, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru ( talk) 14:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
On 10 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Grand National, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 21:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.
We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.
More information, and registration details, at QW2021.-- Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#User talk:Sceptre/Archive 58. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
StarshipSLS ( Talk), ( My Contributions) 15:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Please would you edit User:Sceptre/modules/boxes.css and update User en-gb to User en-GB ? Your user page is currently populating Category:User en-gb, which was moved per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_4#Category:User_en-ca. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box. Current events
Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here. June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June. Drive and blitz reports
January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. ( full results) February Blitz: 15 editors completed 48 copy edits totalling 142,788 words. ( full results) March Drive: 29 editors completed 215 copy edits totalling 407,736 words. ( full results) April Blitz: 12 editors completed 23 copy edits totalling 56,574 words. ( full results) May Drive: 29 editors completed 356 copy edits totalling 479,013 words. ( full results) Other news
Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu and Twofingered Typist, and from member Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for uploading File:Fillmore!.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) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The Requested Move of the page Uyghur Genocide actually had a weak consensus to move the page (10 users supported the move, 8 opposed and 1 weak oppose). Can you enlighten me with the reason why you decided to close the discussion and in turn push the ruling in favor of the minority? Dazaif ( talk) 23:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
You closed RM discussions Talk:George Russell (racing driver) and Talk:Gregory Helms in contrast with Talk:Uyghur genocide. I point out two. 1. Please remove the {{ requested move/dated}}. 2. Please sign your posts. Thanks. Sawol ( talk) 04:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In your close of the
1989 Tiananmen Square protests requested move, there is no consensus to move. the !votes are nearly evenly split with one more oppose than support; a clear no consensus outcome. Your closing statement does not address this at all, and reads more like a supervote. A no consensus close would have been appropriate, though it would have been better left for an admin, being a contentious topic. You also failed to add a {{
RMpmc}}
to the close.--
2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:48B8:DB9F:123D:B5B0 (
talk) 03:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021. Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{ cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I am really new to wikipedia and still reading up on policies and such, but I noticed, on the Bryan Danielson page someone reinstated the redirect, does that mess with the speedy deletion process and making the move happen? I apologize if I am bothering you OmniusM ( talk) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Nvm another person went and took care of it. I a sorry for bothering you. OmniusM ( talk) 22:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021. Current and upcoming events
Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before " Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news
It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thanks for taking the time to go through a really long discussion and closing it. I see you've closed other difficult discussions before. Your work is appreciated. VR talk 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Sceptre,
I am following WP:MR and I am bringing this discussion to your Talk Page. You have recently moved Sexual slavery in Islam to History of concubinage in the Muslim world, but there is clearly no consensus for that (8 votes in favor of the new title, against plenty of alternatives and 8 votes explicitly against the new title, including that of one admin, Andrewa – other editors were Grufo, Iraniangal777, buidhe, BilledMammal, Lambrusquiño, Mcphurphy, Usernamekiran ( #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8).
According to WP:RMNAC,
Non-admin closes normally require that:
- The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days).
- No more than a few associated subpages need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talkpage archives. (Administrators and page movers have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click.)
Both points are were not met in your non-admin closure, so I would like to ask you to review your decision or explain here what brought you to move the page despite the necessary requirements were missing. -- Grufo ( talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
You closed the RM at Talk:Joondalup railway line as not moved without further explanation. What is the reason that you didn't move these pages? The vast majority didn't object the removal of the word railway and those who opposed the move did so because of the capitalization. The variant Joondalup line was one that the majority could agree on. -- PhiH ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Could you please consider reopening Talk:River Butcher#Requested move 23 November 2021 and reverting the moves you made in consequence of the close?
The close seems to be based on your applying WP:DEADNAME. But the closer is not at liberty to add new arguments of their own. See wp:closing#Consensus.
My suggestion is that having reopened the RM, you then !vote to move, citing this new argument. Andrewa ( talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of River Butcher. 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. Andrewa ( talk) 02:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The page "Kiev Day and Night" was moved to Kyiv Day and Night with majority vote directed by latter editors except Exlevan. Depending on vote rationale, the editor who opened the move discussion (Exlevan) must fully sure his decision on the move, but later becomes ambivalent by saying "I'll leave it up to the closer to decide whether this constitutes a proper English source" after I added an English source that supports Kiev Day and Night. In this case, the move should be revoked because Exlevan doesn't show outright support. Regardless of Kyiv/Kiev consensus, we are in English Wikipedia and words should use in English language usage. So, as I flagged an English source still exists in the article [3], reference is very important to support each statement, but the existence of this source is unimportant when the article moved to Kyiv. Thus, I considered this situation unfair judgement. Accordingly, I want to restore Kiev. What do you think? The Supermind ( talk) 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The Newsbeezer is reliable source and the highlight text appeared as evident for assertion. The Supermind ( talk) 06:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I started FA review on D. B. Cooper. You participated in original FAC subpage, so I invite you for input there. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre. Please do not mark edits as minor which add new content, or especially which re-add removed content, as you did in this edit. The edit summary was similarly misleading as most of your edit couldn't be described as copyediting. Thanks. A7V2 ( talk) 08:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This close [4] raises WP:SUPERVOTE concerns. Your stated reason that the article is, in your opinion, "terrible" is not a summary of the discussion. Nor is your assertion that it is a "coatrack". Furthermore, you stated without evidence that "experienced editors" are "almost all" voting one way. As a starting point for discussion, I am requesting that you do an analysis of the edit counts of users who voted each way. If your analysis does not back up your statement, you might want to reconsider. Lastly, your nomination at AfD is further evidence that you have a strong opinion about the article. As you are aware, a discussion closer should be neutral. Adoring nanny ( talk) 21:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
serious crimes or mistakethat China may be covering up (on the origins question). As a closer, you should have summarized the difference between the outbreak cover-up and the origins cover-up in the discussion, and in the article. Where are we going to the AP leaked documents "game of chess"? It doesn't fit into misinformation. Please undo your close and read the discussion properly. Francesco espo ( talk) 23:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Specter, with all due respect, I cannot understand the justification you’ve written on your talk page above. Simply having a high edit count or having been on Wikipedia for a while doesn’t make one’s arguments automatically stronger—consensus is not ascertained by counting heads of experienced users, but instead by evaluating the strength of all the arguments presented in light of WP:PAG.
The particular part about WP:COATRACK also befuddles me. Wouldn’t this be a reason to limit the scope of the article to when RS report that an actual cover-up occurred, rather than changing the scope of the acticle to include every single allegation of a Chinese COVID-19 coverup that has been reported on by a reliable source or two?
I had examined the discussion and I had thought about closing it, but decided against it for reasons of not having time to write out a four-paragraph no-consensus-to-move close. But I really do not understand how that discussion resulted in an affirmative consensus to move. I would respectfully request that you undo your closure and either allow further discussion for seven additional days (to make consensus more clear) or to allow a panel to close it. If not, I would be happy to open a move review as an uninvolved page mover who did not participate in the discussion. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this move request, you closed it as "move" but I found Quail Island (New Zealand) sitting there under its old disambiguation. I assumed this was an omission and have moved (swapped) it myself. Just in case there's something that I overlooked, here's a heads up. Schwede 66 00:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of History of concubinage in the Muslim world. 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. Grufo ( talk) 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of China COVID-19 cover-up allegations. 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.
My apologies for the late notification. Adoring nanny ( talk) 22:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:High Speed 3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the history for Checkers has now been merged into Draughts, so you can complete the move now. Thanks. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Your close decision is risible. You have allowed yourself to be duped by a bunch of football fanatics with a narrow view of the world. Nothing material has changed in the period covered by 5 previous declined requests. This was always likely to be controversial - maybe it should have been closed by an experienced Admin. And before you kick-off and make PA accusations, I have read your user page headline. Leaky caldron ( talk) 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
---
Hi Sceptre
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how you would see a consensus to move from the discussion in question. There are two competing policy arguments, and roughly equal voices in each direction, so that is a textbook "no consensus". Please could you reconsider? I didn't !vote in the discussion, but I have participated in previous discussions and am firmly opposed to the move that has been made. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 16:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to state that I was quite surprised to see the RfM closed as a consensus to move. I voted no, so I have that bias, but the closure seems not to align with the statements and the votes. I know it is not a vote count, but 7 oppose to 6 support without any indication of one side having a substantially stronger argument hardly seems like a consensus to move.-- Cerebral726 ( talk) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your close of this RM, you state that "The consensus of this discussion is that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English". However, that is not my reading of the discussion; several editors, including myself, disagreed with the claim that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English, and there was no evidence presented for the claim that it is the commonly used term, while there was evidence presented against that claim; could you clarify how you assessed this consensus?
I would also note that you don't address the WP:COMMONALITY exception to WP:ENGVAR; could you clarify how you considered this? BilledMammal ( talk) 02:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. In this case, that would be "European settlers", which is accepted inside and outside New Zealand, compared to "Pākehā", which is only used in New Zealand - and even in New Zealand the evidence suggests that the preferred name is "European settlers".
An editor has asked for a Move review of Pākehā settlers. 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. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I would like you to reconsider your closure of this move discussion. Your reference to BLP (which wasn't mentioned at all in the discussion), give it the appearance of a supervote. Also, you said "MOS:GENDERID is the overriding policy, not WP:COMMONNAME", but MOS:GENDERID is a guideline not a policy. Perhaps you could just make your comments into a !vote. St Anselm ( talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Sceptre Thank you for for closing and also saying something about the accusations! It's pretty disheartening that editors consider respecting trans people and relying on their identification some kind of violation of WP policy, but I'm glad to see you're helping manage institutional bias here. TheTranarchist ( talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
Please explain how you took my comments (and a support that was then rescinded after them) into consideration in your close, which doesn't mention them. They were specifically about putting her dignity, and trans dignity in general, at the focus. I understand that you found my views "interesting ... food for thought", but I don't understand how you actually considered them in light of other policies and guidelines, especially when they weren't discussed by other !voters. How is a forcible move to Gloria appropriate for someone who used three different names in the week prior to her death, and for whose preferences we actually don't know, as I explained? Why is a close appropriate instead of keeping it open for more time for discussion? Urve ( talk) 22:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Gregory Hemingway. 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. St Anselm ( talk) 22:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
If it's all the same to you, I would prefer it if this was allowed to run for a longer period, a week seems a tad on the short side. Thanks. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Spectre,
I was wondering how you assessed the consensus for this move request? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that my move request was closed for incorrect reasons. As User:BilledMammal stated, articles cannot start with a lower case letter. But that was not the purpose of the move request, which was requesting that the disambiguation would be moved to all upper-case. The page would still start with an uppercase letter, but it would be shifted to lowercase using Template:Lowercase title as it currently is now. Please reopen the move request, thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Sceptre,
On your close at Talk:Schön_scandal, which only showed up to me now for some reason... I recognize that it's a tricky close, and I doubt your review was so invalid as to be overturned at MR or the like. That said, I was wondering if you would reconsider anyway. I'd like to point out two notable issues:
I already said my case on the merits, which is why I'm sticking to "procedural" issues above. That said, I think they're real, and think this is a case where "no consensus" if that's the close should still result in a reversion to the original title, as it should have in the 2014 RM. SnowFire ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your closure of Talk:Discord_(software)#Requested_move_2_March_2022.
I count 19 editors supporting and 9 editors opposing. That is a clear majority, and not a close one.
The arguments are not just page views and clickstream versus long-term significance. Supporters also made several other relevant points, such as: that neither the goddess Eris nor the music theory technical concept of dissonance is mainly referred to or would be searched by "discord"; WP:NOTDICTIONARY; and the dissimilarities with apple (which has an encyclopedia article) and the similarity with Hearthstone. Overall, I think the support side made a stronger case on the merits. (Indeed, several participants switched their position from oppose to support during the RM, which is a sign that a case was convincing.)
Even if you disagree and you think that the arguments from both sides were roughly equal on the merits, then if the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it
(
Wikipedia:Closing discussions). If some people gave more weight to some policies and one part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and other people gave more weight to another, then the 19 editors have the rough consensus over the 9.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Sceptre - I had come by to ask for your reconsideration here, and see that Adumbrativus made essentially every argument I'd come up with, although I count 20 !supports including the nom. Seeing your response to Adumbrativus, I'm still confused. There were only two strong !opposes and two weak !supports. Even if you discount half of a weak !vote and count a strong !vote as 1 1/2, that still is 19:10 in favor. Please consider a re-open if not a full reversal, in light of the quote from WP:Closing discussions. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Discord (software). 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. Adumbrativus ( talk) 06:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 18,998 views (791.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work! |
Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021. Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators. January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. ( details) February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. ( details) March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. ( details) April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now! Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I know you’re trying to help, but if it were me I’d take a break from closing discussions. You’ve got a really abnormal volume of complaints above (5+?). In one of the move reviews, a sizeable number of participants had issues with your general closing of discussions and one said they were damaging to the RM process. In the other move review, your judgement was less attacked but honestly, at minimum, the discussion wasn’t ripe for closure (it was still actively being discussed and you closed it promptly after 7 days, in the opposite direction of the flow of comments), and your response to the editors’ concerns above wasn’t ideal. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Nine years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/d has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the page to List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champions. Not sure why it was rejected since it was a technical request. The person who "denied" the request was in the wrong. Thank you again. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 05:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can. Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Baffle☿gab 03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)