Note. This is solely a talk page here. No barnstars, no DYK/GA/whatever notifications besides such that would be needed for Wikipedia's administrative purposes (such as warnings, ANI discussions, RfC/article help etc.) You are always welcome to talk to me. But please let's keep order. Any contributions that I consider worthwhile are here.
Hi, did you intend to refactor my comment (which I had changed earlier [1]) here? Or was it an accident? JBchrch ( talk) 11:25, 12 May 2021 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
Till your reached 500 edits you are not allowed to participate in I/P discussions on various boards.I will strike your comments. -- Shrike ( talk) 09:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the PA at the rfc either. That Hong Kong business correspondent? She wrote this headline for the Times in February 2020: “Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins.”
“Scientists,” the slug reads, “have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it’s the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.”
“Republican who floated virus conspiracy says ‘common sense has been my guide,'” the weekend editor at The Guardian dismissively explained.
“A GOP senator,” our award-winning Saudi investigator declared, “keeps pushing a thoroughly debunked theory that the Wuhan coronavirus is a leaked Chinese biological weapon gone wrong.”
“Sen. Tom Cotton Flogs Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Dismissed by Actual Scientists,” the editor of The Daily Beast howled.
“Tom Cotton’s veiled threats really aren’t helping,” Maddow’s blogger chimed in.
“Don’t Listen To Sen. Tom Cotton About Coronavirus,” our “media disinformation” boy piped up.
“Tom Cotton and the virus conspiracy theory,” the three-decades veteran of an Arkansas weekly blogged, citing a Vanity Fair write-up that maintained far more nuance than the grizzled blogger.
“Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) repeated a fringe theory,” the young Post staffer confidently led, “suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.” That “theory,” her headline definitively states, “was already debunked.”
“Senator Tom Cotton Ramps Up Anti-China Rhetoric,” Forbes’ “Under 30 community lead” righteously wrote.
“Tom Cotton,” CNN’s Chris Cillizza authoritatively declared, “is playing a dangerous game with his coronavirus speculation.” 2601:46:C801:B1F0:DCB9:7D2F:45A6:B333 ( talk) 15:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Keilar: Proof one of Trump's biggest lies didn't pass the smell test
New Day CNN's Brianna Keilar rolls the tape one year after peaceful protesters in Washington, DC, were tear gassed so former President Trump could walk to a church and display a Bible. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/06/01/tear-gas-washington-dc-protesters-trump-roll-the-tape-newday-vpx.cnn
The report says protests "were mostly peaceful during the day," but that officers reported that some protesters threw projectiles, such as bricks, rocks, caustic liquids, frozen water bottles, glass bottles, lit flares, rental scooters, and fireworks, at law enforcement officials. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/police-did-not-clear-d-c-s-lafayette-park-protestors-n1270126
and FTR that Hirsch fantasy piece about Trump's finances is 80percent proven false with the illegally leaked tax returns. Not true? Please show me where this Russian money is on the tax returns. That article predates the leaked returns and is proven mostly false with the tax return leak.
2601:46:C801:B1F0:C5E9:F45E:9426:59D2 (
talk) 22:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 09:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent articles, including Jan Żaryn, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 7 June 2021 (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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.
- GizzyCatBella 🍁 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin ( talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Long, so collapsible.
Complaint
|
---|
The article in question has been a subject of a rather heated discussion on what constitutes material inclusive which could be included in a BLP and which does not pass muster. These seem to be two sides, represented by u|Volunteer Marek (VM), u|GizzyCatBella and u|Lembit Staan on the one hand, and me, u|François Robere, u|Mhorg and u|CPCEnjoyer on the other. The article has already been subject of an apparent edit war (see history in late April and early this month), with the same change (being a translation of a "Criticism section" from Polish wiki, not ideal but mostly OK for inclusion in general) being reverted by VM six times, three of which in a 12-hour span. After that, an RfC on Jan Żaryn was started by a user which was later found to be a sock (discussion deleted, log), but he reposted content from the François Robere's proposal, which is in the archive, so for this one, I have no objections, the RfC was OK). Having determined that the proposal will stall until the article gets more scope on that person, I decided to do some expansion, noting that the content For various reasons, which I mostly dispute, however, I have seen wholesale deletion of article content for what I see are (mostly) spurious reasons and mere guises to delete content they don't like. To be clear, there has been some productive discussion, which means not all is lost, but I start to lose patience after further deliberation becomes more inflammatory and edit-war-provoking and less about moving forward. Please evaluate the following evidence and break the impasse. 1. Editors from the side of deletion misrepresent policy as regards consensus. They have tried to claim that since I (or other users) have not obtained their consensus before adding some info to the article, it is to be deleted until consensus is established. (first edit referencing an archived discussion on criticism section where only VM seemed to be a lone dissenter for most of the time, and it involved 3 active people). However, that interpretation goes contrary to WP:BOLD and is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP; this also is almost exactly the phrasing of "Please do not make [any more] changes without my/their/our approval", which is indicative of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (particularly as concerns VM). Such behaviour even has its own essay on Wikipedia. Some more context to that will be provided in the following points. 2. Editors have engaged in wholesale, and, in my view, mostly unjustified deletion of content. The users have raised several objections, but not everywhere and in such a way that they can hardly be interpreted as serious.
3. Allegations of tendentious editing/addition of undue material. I have repeatedly been accused of making tendentious edits on the article's subject, so far that I was accused of conspiring to add more "defamatory" material and of making an attack page. Actually, my reason of expansion was exactly for the page not to be or sound like one, as I have noted in my RfC vote (though I did agree that the Polish version of criticism was pretty OK as it stood). The users have repeatedly deleted information I have provided as if it was violating neutral point of view. In fact, I have only reported sources in WP:proportion to what I was aware was his coverage in reliable sources, with a particular focus on scholarly resources, and all of these were unanimous as far as my query went. The users in question have contributed NO additional material to his biography (other than the Szeligi house, which has nothing to do with Jan Żaryn personally at all), and instead mostly (apart from the productive discussions I've noted above) moaned about supposed BLPVIOs, UNDUEs etc., which more looked like WP:SEALIONing because they usually didn't offer any solution but to delete, nor did they offer any of their resources to show that indeed, there were RS sources casting him in positive light, even if I haven't found any in RS (because I haven't indeed). Finding more information (in proportion to the other side's coverage) is a way more productive way of rectifying any potential NPOV concerns than simply deleting ad nauseam. As a good illustration for that, they correctly found what I meant to write basing on the sources, which I couldn't formulate well (overexaggeration of szmalcownik claims about Jews, which is a point Libionka made in the work cited in the same sentence), but instead of correcting that, they chose to delete the whole sentence altogether.
|
Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Ummm, the big piece of info that you somehow manage to omit is the fact that THERE Was indeed sock puppetry by Icewhiz on the article. Like you provide this diff [2] of me “casting aspersions” or whatever, except... that account was indeed a sock puppet of Icewhiz, as confirmed by SPI, so my comment was 100% correct. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
here (deletion of whole paragraphs with a vague "yeah, the sourcing is too weak" even as the sources cited two scholars' opinions and had 3 sources to each claim)and you support this with a diff which is actually three or four different edits (why the diff says “intermediate revisions”). The edit where I said in edit summary that sourcing is week was actually this one [3]. The sourcing there is just Newsweek and Wyborcza, NOT “two scholars opinions and 3 sources to each claim”. So you accuse me of one thing and then present a diff that’s about something completely different. I’m sorry but that’s simply dishonest. Your whole write up is full of sneaky manipulations such as these. Of course you’re free to file whatever you want though. Volunteer Marek 16:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The key to "surviving" in difficult TAs is keeping your calm. If it means taking a break, take it. If it means reviewing your comments with fresh eyes, do it. There's a delicate balance to what we can and cannot say, and you should always keep at the back of your mind the consideration of how the community might read your words in the future - especially when dealing with difficult editors. Most editors are fine, and their objections eventually serve to hone the text; but problematic editors... they are who they are, and there's little that you or anyone else can, or should do to change them. You can employ a variety of strategies for dealing with them, but at end all you can really do is hope that at some point in the future they'll have a reckoning with the community, and make sure that you haven't worn out by then. François Robere ( talk) 12:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited In God We Trust, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington, KFOR and Doubleday.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
See wp:brd and WP:ONUS, if you are reverted you are supposed to make a case at talk. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I know this is embarrassing but can please explain what do you mean by "there's no need to restate the table."? Thanks Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the detailed close. Just one question: I think that the discussion was whether Rolling Stone was unreliable from 2011-Present (i.e. starting in 2011 and continuing through today); I'm wondering if you'd be willing to modify the close to explicitly state that, since "post-2011" would exclude 2011 itself.
Many thanks, — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
That was a useful edit to Polexit. What is missing now is any pro-EU political positions. It can be inferred from Tusk's remarks but would you be able to add some info about Civic Platform? Are there others that have parliamentary representation? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I saw you pinged him, Wikieditor was tbanned from IP area, in large part due to his behavior at the enclaves article. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As another tool in your toolbox, know that you can use little comments to note your changes in addition to, or instead of strikethorugh and underline.
François Robere (
talk) 09:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC) (Clarified alternatives 09:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC))
Since this relates to Wikipedia as a source, it should probably be listed under the Media, the arts, and architecture category. Mind if I add it? François Robere ( talk) 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the message you left at the review. I'd never done a DYK nomination before, but I wanted to get my fellow WP:Med member's work recognised properly, so I nominated this article, and I came up with what I thought was a great hook. I never imagined the hostility that would ensue. It's really discouraging, and I don't think I want to be involved in this anymore. So I probably won't be replying to your message on the thread. But I didn't want to not thank you for pointing out how wasteful this is. I personally find it really sad when something ends up being a low-quality version of what it should have been :( Dr. Vogel ( talk) 17:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey Szmenderowiecki,
I suggest pinging the user you mentioned there. I'm not sure it's required outside the OP's initial message, but it's good practice and will save both of you some grief. Cheers! François Robere ( talk) 13:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki,
You said What's saddest in all this discussion...
Without extending the prose on that page, what did you mean by that last part?
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 10:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey Szmenderowiecki. You and I got got off to a bad start, but since then I've seen you around and I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate the work that you do. Happy editing! JBchrch talk 19:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki,
I just wanted to discuss the applicability of
WP:SNOWBALL to the move requests at
Wrocław,
Kraków, and
Łódź.
WP:SNOWBALL states that The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view
. Given that the requests were only open for two days and that there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement, I believe that the decision to close the discussion is very premature.
Furthermore, in closing the discussion, how did you consider the strength of the arguments as per WP:DISCARD? I ask this because many of the comments either didn't cite policy or source reasons for their opposition despite both of those being used to support a move.
Thank you. -- Spekkios ( talk) 22:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Proper names in languages which use the Latin alphabet can include characters with diacritics, ligatures, and others that are not commonly used in present-day English. Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters.The best approximation I have seen is the ngram viewer, which actually gives a slight edge for Wrocław and Kraków and a slight edge for Lodz, but none of them are convincing enough to say "this is an obviously prevalent version", just some prevalence, with good evidence that the diacritic version will be used more in the future.
Accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. [...] Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example), which are less familiar to most American writers, editors and readers; such marks would be prone to error, and type fonts often lack characters necessary for consistency), to Wikipedia, being a global project written not only by people in the UK, US or other English-speaking countries, and where we don't have problems with type fonts, is certainly not a way to go. Instead of fighting the war on diacritics from your own sofa, I'd propose to do something else, something which is probably more productive.
The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.
The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions.I believed it proper to stop wasting other editors' time on what I saw was a foregone conclusion, based on the overwhelming opposition of the commenters. I have pointed out above which arguments I found persuasive and which were not exactly so or were properly debunked. In short, if you don't want to read the above piece, a host of other considerations were advanced, few of which have been addressed at that point but could have been, based on timestamps of the editors supporting the move, while the OPs stuck with COMMONNAME argument, which itself was on pretty shaky ground. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Huge thanks for your translation work on Maurice Duplessis ! I worked on the french version of the article. Hamza.Tabaichount ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your incisive comment. Jehochman Talk 03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You mention a certain User:DreamCatcher25 but such an editor does not exit. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Le Touquet weatherbox has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes ( talk) 17:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi! It takes some time before I could respond after you mentioned me in your comment about Warsaw Concentration Camp and Haaretz article. However, I’d rather not to participate in this discussion. Firstly, I don’t have a strong opinion on that matter – while I am rather against “Wikipedia articles focusing about what was written about these articles in other sources” I find difficult to identify the Wikipedia rules that clearly forbid mention the story from Haaretz. Secondly, I fully agree with you that it is mind-boggling that such a small footnote caused such controversy. Finally, this whole discussion is clearly fueled by the severe personal conflict, and I don’t want to be the part of it. Having said that… If I can be of any help regarding the Warsaw Concentration Camp or other Holocaust-related articles, I mean their substance, the sources etc., you can always approach me. Last but not least, let me congratulate you the brilliant expansion of the article Warsaw Concentration Camp. I hope that I find some time in 2022 to use some of the new sources you found (if you be so kind to share some of them, if needed), and use them to expand the article on pl.wiki. Cheers! Dreamcatcher25 ( talk) 09:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help with a Polish translation; I think Google translate is misleading me. I'm looking at this Tygodnik Nasza Polska article, which (tell me if I'm misreading) appears to be an editorial written by the publisher of TNP, and I'm reading things like "Żydzi roznosili tyfus, spekulanci wykupywali towar ze sklepów, antyszczepionkowcy zabierają miejsca w szpitalach itd. Zresztą wszystkie te grupy mają dużo więcej na „sumieniu”. Ale jedno ich łączy. Są wrogiem społeczeństwa i trzeba ich wyplenić." (Gtranslate: "Jews spread typhus, speculators bought goods from shops, anti-vaccines took places in hospitals, etc. Anyway, all these groups have much more on their "conscience". But they have one thing in common. They are the enemy of society and must be eradicated.") and "Trzeba też pokazać rozwiązanie: eksterminację Żydów, skazanie spekulantów, ograniczenie wolności dla antyszczepionkwców lub ich przymusowe wyszczepienie." (Gtranslate: "A solution must also be shown: the extermination of the Jews, the condemnation of the speculators, the restriction of freedom for anti-vaccinees or their forcible vaccinations.").
Here is my question: I can't figure out if the author is, in his own voice, advocating that Jews be exterminated, or if the author is drawing a parallel between people who say "Jews must be exterminated" and people who want to mandate vaccines or restrict the freedoms of anti-vaxxers? I can't figure out if this is like neonazi propaganda, or anti-vax propaganda, or not propaganda at all and I'm just totally misreading it? Thanks for any insight you can provide. Levivich 17:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Kolejną metodą jest tworzenie uprzedzeń, które łatwo wygenerować i upowszechnić poprzez częsty kontakt z zestawieniami pojęć z prostymi komunikatami: „muzułmanin – terrorysta”, „Żyd – tyfus”, „antyszczepionkowiec – epidemia, śmierć”.("Another method [of dividing the society] is the generation of prejudices that are easy to create and spread via frequent contact with juxtaposed terms that have an easy-to-decipher message: 'Muslim - terrorist', 'Jew - typhus', 'anti-vaxxer - epidemic, death'"). From these words I think you should have inferred that he does not consider any of these parallels to be right.
If you are going to write a close that is basically consensus against inclusion, then you might as well state as much. Just ignore !votes because they are just that: (not)-votes [See
WP:!VOTE].
I obviously don't agree with your close, but I would prefer if you are to actually close the discussion, you do so keeping in mind the guidance provided in
WP:NAC. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 18:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
To clarify: Is there a consensus against depreciation, or no consensus for depreciation? BilledMammal ( talk) 10:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I can say there is consensus for the publication to be listed as generally unreliable due to its indiscriminate publication of content, including conspiratorial and denialist pieces(emphasis in original). I think I couldn't have been clearer. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It's deprecated until it's un-deprecatedand that
We'd need an RFC of equal weight to reverse [the previous RFC]. To me, this would suggest that this wasn't to be considered a rerun, but a new RFC, that would require consensus to un-deprecated the source to un-deprecate it. This would also be in line with standard WP:NOCONSENSUS procedures. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source, which would imply that the source should not be deprecated if there is no community consensus for that. My determination is that currently there is none.
I will not really submit a vote herereduces that concern somewhat. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Normally, a no consensus outcome in this situation would result in the deprecation and blacklisting being upheld as the status quo. However, it was pointed out in the discussion that 112.ua had originally been added to the blacklist following an RfC that did not specifically address it. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Should CounterPunch be undeprecated?instead of
Should CounterPunch be deprecated?, the no consensus result would have resulted in CounterPunch remaining deprecated? BilledMammal ( talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Should CounterPunch be undeprecated?, would the RSP listing for CounterPunch still be "deprecated" rather than "generally unreliable"? BilledMammal ( talk) 14:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Talk:2022 Burkinabé coup d'état a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Talk:2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 09:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I was trying to close this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. So far as MEDRSness of the source was concerned, I was able to establish rough consensus for reliability, at least according to my understanding of policies and guidelines and the arguments presented in the discussion. However, I struggle to resolve the primary/secondary dispute, as the PAGs appear to contradict each other and interpretation may differ based on the point of reference which you take for the paper. Maybe there is no diverging interpretation, or I've messed up back at the time I've closed the previous discussion, but that closure seems sound, and I stand by the draft as proposed below.
Some admins will almost surely criticise me for long-winded closes, but I want to make clear that all arguments have been considered. The passage I have doubts about is in italics.
Rough consensus for reliability, source type impossible to determine.
Before I proceed with my justification, a question arose about whether excess mortality estimates, and allegations of undercounting, are
biomedical information. The relevant passage says:
Population data and epidemiology: Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc.
Estimates of excess mortality thus squarely belong to the biomedical information and
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should be used only. As to allegations of undercounting/cover-up, journalism may deliver some good information on that subject but that is not the case where the
WP:NEWSORGs override scholarship as what has been shown is that there is reason for caution (attribution is recommended in this case), but not evidence of falsification or fraud. There has been concern about undeclared conflict of interest regarding the interference of censors, but the BMJ article still stands without correction so far, nor have any examples from other scientists been provided about the problem with the paper that trace to the Chinese censors.
We should only dismiss the paper if hard evidence for wrongdoing appears, and
we are not peer-reviewers and shouldn't substitute their judgment for ours, as a few editors have noted.
A lot of !votes unfortunately conflated reliability with primary/secondary concerns.
Secondary ≠ good, primary ≠ bad. It's true we should generally avoid primary sources for MEDRS content, but that's separate from reliability. Therefore, as for reliability, several editors have noted that the BMJ is a respected publication for MEDRS content, and indeed it is given as an example of a good journal in the guideline; no peer review or accuracy issues were presented as published by scholars, other than the general speculation about Chinese scholarship's suspectness due to COVID-19 censorship. Mere suspicion is not enough, however. So this source belongs to MEDRS, unlike, say, The Economist or the Financial Times.
As for the primary vs. secondary aspect, it appears that my closure was linked to this discussion. It is definitely applicable here, but I am at crossroads here as regards determination of whether this is primary or secondary for their estimate of excess mortality.
Per this source (University of Minnesota), "data compilations" are considered secondary sources, and this paper is surely one; this is also what
WP:SECONDARY would say, as they present their own analysis of China CDC, police, hospital, and other data - and that's why the
previous closure I made came to an AFAIK uncontroversial conclusion that the political science paper was a secondary source. At the same time
according to this source (Georgia State) this would be a primary source as an original method for estimation was devised by the scientists, and that fits the definition in
WP:MEDDEF, as this is not a meta-analysis, it doesn't make concrete recommendations and does not provide "an overview of current understanding of the topic". In my view, the policies are contradictory and do not allow for a black-and-white determination of the type of source.
I will also add, outside of the closure, that allegations of undercounting by experts in their domain of expertise (virology/epidemiology) (i.e. not e.g. a researcher of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, see Boston Herald piece) may be mentioned, with the annotation that they are unproven yet, as no concrete evidence appeared that the data was totally flawed. The more recent the allegations are, the better, but the allegations should not be overriding peer-reviewed scholarship. The scientists who do not trust the estimates are free to present their calculations in peer-reviewed journals, and we will balance them accordingly.
Any thoughts about how to resolve it? Pinging all participants of the discussion: @ Corinal, Bakkster Man, CutePeach, Thucydides411, Alexbrn, Nableezy, Shibbolethink, Jumpytoo, VQuakr, TolWol56, LondonIP, Francesco espo, My very best wishes, NavjotSR, ProcrastinatingReader, Only in death, ScrumptiousFood, Adoring nanny, Compassionate727, Azuredivay, Davide King, Chalst, Valjean, Roxy the dog, and Pious Brother: Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"It's true we should generally avoid primary sources for MEDRS content, but that's separate from reliability"← No, it's central to reliability. Much primary research is wrong, which is why the validating layer of an appropriate secondary source is generally required for any assertion of fact. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge.It's not as if primary is automatically unusable, but we shouldn't devote much space to it. If, however, it is secondary - which is the issue - then we may use it more broadly. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources). It doesn't seem as if the source is insignificant (in fact, we have 31 citations to it). The arguments that tried to prove the UNDUE point weren't strong as they were trying to use popular press (FT, The Economist, Boston Herald etc.) as counterbalance, and it is surely not MEDRS-compliant.
In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. These publications, which may be in peer-reviewed journal articles or in some other form, are often called the primary literature to differentiate them from unpublished sources.This doesn't seem to clarify the situation, as it relies on data to derive conclusions about data (yeah, secondary!) which themselves may be considered data (oh, still primary). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll note I much prefer Szmenderowiecki's first proposed close of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 369#Is the specific study this discussion originated with (BMJ) reliable? to the close of Amadeus1999 that we eventually ended up with. The fault here really lies with the unintended consequences of measures in MEDRS intended to eliminate poor quality sources that in fact interfere with our ability to apply our neutrality and verifiability policies. I've been meaning to propose changes to MEDRS for approaching a year now; perhaps this outcome will concentrate minds on the failures of those guidelines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [ [4]] Cheers Elinruby ( talk) 02:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all of your concerns/comment about the Vitamin A DYK. (I could not find "etiological". Thank you for the DYK review and the prompts to improve the article. The GA reviewer had mentioned that this was their first GA review, and I had been worried much was missed. I dropped that person a note to look at the DYK as a lesson. David notMD ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There's no template for that, but please don't do that again. There was a good reason to remove the IP's comment (it's entirely non-constructive). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.(the guy reverted your edit and you insisted on the removal regardless) and WP:RUC says that
It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.(it wasn't obviously vandalism or trolling; it could be just geniune belief in a certain (misguided) theory that an IP sought to push on the talk page). There's also the fact that
Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.I didn't see any ad hominems there, just incivility (rather mild in my experience of talk pages) and off-topic rants.
Let the gaslight burn bright!seems like a rather clear accusation of gaslighting, and given the IP's otherwise non-collaborative behaviour (they seem more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, and haven't presented a single source despite multiple requests), and given past disruption in the topic area, their comment is hard to distinguish from trolling, even if it might not be "obvious" to an external observer (context matters! what is "obvious" trolling is not quite the same thing everywhere...). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
if you are arguing with an idiot, try to make sure he isn't doing the same. Keeping this in mind often helps not escalating needless disputes. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to 2022 French presidential election: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 ( talk) 10:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, it's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talleyrand6 ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The RFC you have closed as a technical matter, fine, but directing the closer to take that RFC into account in the subsequent RFC is wrong, it is a different question and it is not part of the other RFC. Re your close of the split discussion, it seems clear that there IS a consensus, not to split? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Note. This section has been moved from the talk page of the article.
Szmenderowiecki, I think your closing is problematic in light of Peter Gulutzan's review of what Merchants of Doubt actually says. It does appear that the weight given to that source is UNDUE given the actual claims being made by the source. Additionally, by weight of numbers I do not see a consensus for content in the lead. At best this should be a no-consensus and probably a remove from lead based on possibly failing wp:V (I think that last one should have more discussion before concluding it's a WP:V problem). Springee ( talk) 13:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The “article” -- never published in a scientific journal, but summarized in the Wall Street Journal -- repeated a wide range of debunked claims, including the assertion that there was no warming at all.[footnote] It was mailed to thousands of American scientists, with a cover letter signed by Seitz inviting the recipients to sign a petition against the Kyoto Protocol.Frederick Seitz indeed sent out a petition along with a copy of the article. (The book refers to the petition in a prior footnote but the online edition http://petitionproject.org has apparently changed since then because it now mentions a later article.) I've seen the Wall Street Journal article described as an "op-ed", do you disagree with that? The book's statement that I've quoted does not say that the Wall Street Journal editorial board endorsed the claims, do you disagree with that? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 17:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author." This does not mean, however, that the newspaper must disagree with the view simply because it's an op-ed not an editorial; it simply means that the newspaper does not necessarily agree with what that person says. Now, as I said and as has been practice for major newspaper industry players (including WSJ), op-eds, even if they are not supposed to be the editorial board's opinion and are supposed to reflect all worldviews, often tend to mirror the editorial board's (and this is what WSJ itself admitted back in 1998). This, of course, was not considered when I was writing the closure as no one made that argument, but I assumed this statement as a fact that reflects the current state of the press industry, which apparently wasn't obvious.
the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If it is present in the article in a meaningful way (it is), it should be summarised, that's it. Arguments that said we shouldn't summarise the stuff in the body were discarded. Weight may be discussed (see MOS:LEADREL), but presence is ordered by policy. Additionally, sourcing was provided/is provided to support the claim that "the editorial board has promoted", as some editors have disputed the phrasing. My finding boils down to two things: sourcing is there and is good enough (except for the lead sentence, which needs another more recent ref, e.g. among those in the article), and policy orders us to summarise everything in the text.
I've opened a close review here [7]. Springee ( talk) 03:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warsaw concentration camp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 21:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I added three sources to Wee Sing. I think it easily passes notability now. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can you help me understand what just happened there? While I certainly agree the article should be deleted (I nominated it, after all), I only nominated it a day ago, so I'm confused by the fast closure, as I was under the impression seven days were usually required for non-admin closure. How does that work? Thanks! PianoDan ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gordon Klein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 23:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at
WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the
deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the
new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
On 19 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Suwałki Gap, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Suwałki Gap is often described as the modern version of the Cold War–era Fulda Gap, a NATO vulnerability of historical importance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Suwałki Gap. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Suwałki Gap), 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.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 19,790 views (824.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 02:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 [a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size. [b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
There is a new template available, {{
NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15245 articles, as of 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Re this edit, I reacted to the article appearance on my watchlist, saw the typo and, in thinking about correcting it, read part of the surrounding text and reacted to problems I thought I saw there. I didn't recall that there was another mention of the flaperon and didn't look more widely so as to see that -- I should have. I've been interested in the article from the start due to its relation to some of my background and personal interests. I see here that I have edited it a number of times -- probably lately mostly, lately, in reaction to seeing it on my watchlist. There is really no reason I ought to be following it. I've removed it from my watchlist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Please don't continue to re-add that sentence to the lead. Doing so without an edit summary makes it look like you just tried to "slip it by me" 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
If THAT station has broken a max temp record, then the cited source will update it, and then you may update the table. But not before. You can write it down in a note so as not to forget it if you are very interested but foremost, please respect the integrity of the sources.--Asqueladd ( talk) 21:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
You have tempted me with "All the power of convincing me to do more for Wikipedia in more needed subjects is nowhere else than in your brain and your fingers striking against the keyboard".
As you can see the history section of Ukraine is far too long. I asked on the talk page a couple of times but no-one has come forward to shorten it. Of course this would be a very hard task - but I suspect you have the skills to be able to do it. Any chance you could make an attempt - still useful and no shame if you give up part way through. Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki, I have just had to reclose three DYK nominations that you originally closed at the end of last month because they weren't closed properly, leaving some internal templates, fields and comments that don't belong in a closed nom. You need to subst the entire outer DYKsubpage template for the nomination to close the way they were designed.
The instructions for closing a failed nomination are at Template talk:Did you know#How to remove a rejected hook. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them as best I can. Thanks for your work at DYK. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki,
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki, I highly recommend you review the link which I have posted in the discussion as the information may be relevant. Please let me know if you have any questions on the contents. Carter00000 ( talk) 06:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Carter00000 Thanks for the link. As I said, I do not wish to escalate to ANI or else I'd have posted it on ANI directly after having some more chat with the user. Besides, as I said, a lot of Alsoriano97's work is indeed useful, so it's just a matter for resolving without escalating to blocks, unless this behaviour still repeats. Also, I've had no talkpage interaction so far that suggests something is wrong. So I cannot forbid you to pursue another sanction, but that's definitely not my goal. Just resolve some points of disagreement Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 07:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review for Kiwi Farms external link RfC. Endwise ( talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
Suggestions:
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The filing is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alsoriano97. Please provide any information on background or specific incidents if you would like to. Carter00000 ( talk) 13:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for closing the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol. To clarify, does your closure mean that there's enough consensus to change "our Solar System" to "the Solar System" on Milky Way? That's how I'd read your closure, but I'm not sure since another editor seems to have disagreed. Thanks, Some1 ( talk) 23:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
that rfc never reached consensus, it was simple closed2)
for non admins, WP:RCON is not really a thing, otherwise, see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and/or take it to talk, and 3)
Doesn't work that way, take it to talk per WP:BRD. There was no consensus, the closing (non-admin) editors remarks were simple another opinion (and slightly incorrect at that). There is no rule against uninvolved non-admins closing RfC discussions and you were well in your rights to close the discussion. Thoughts? Some1 ( talk) 01:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
So, one by one, per your closing statement, no policy (NPOV) was violated. That actually kicks out MOS:OUR and WP:PRONOUN arguments, they are based on that policy. No guidance from the IAU, only observations of usage at ESA and no statements from NASA (link was simply an anonymous writer making an unreferenced claim on a kids page, and contradicting that usage further down the same page) leave us at no guidance. So it boiled down to a split of "I like it"/"i don't like it" arguments, with MOS:STYLERET thrown in. That's a "No consensus" or "leave it and let it close its self" result.
Per
Some1 actions - please note WP:PROJECT ----> "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles."
So that brings us back to
Talk:Milky Way where there are ample RfCs, although another one can always be started.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (
talk) 04:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective, which is
unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader- hardly an endorsement for ever writing in first person, with the exception of quotes and some isolated cases. Those !voting for option C tried to say "our" could be used figuratively, but further arguments for using this exception were not developed; and no one indicated in the arguments that this was one of the isolated cases in which we should say the guideline does not apply. Therefore, I considered the MOS:OUR/WP:PRONOUN argument to be rooted in a reasonable interpretation of the guideline and I accepted it.
This will generate a lot of drama for no gain", so this is where I plan to leave it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your closure of the SOC-8 Rfc, more long-winded closures like this, please. Good job; thanks for your time and your effort. Mathglot ( talk) 10:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
West Herzegovina Canton has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki, thank you for closing
Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Mark Milley apology. You said that there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment
. I construe this as a call for removal. Can you please execute the removal of the sentence? I would do it myself, but it's contentious article, as I'm sure you know, and I don't want to step on any toes. Thank you.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers
talk 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
(Moved from
Talk:Donald Trump) @
Szmenderowiecki: You wrote that WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC.
Were you under the impression that the sentence was added recently since you mentioned the discussion that took place a month ago? The sentence was
added to the section almost three years ago.
WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's a bit vague but I read that to mean "those seeking to add disputed content." The proponents of the RfC were seeking to remove long-standing content. The RfC proposer's question "Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now)" may have led some readers to believe that it is recently added content. The proposer should have asked whether "the sentence below should be removed from the article." Also, this
cute move,
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, really? I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
in discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.I actually did not quote that sentence for some reason (I should have), but there you go. You should present some very good reason why the result of the "no consensus" closure should be the return to status quo. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 10:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This belongs at the article talk page please reinstate it there, where I will add my voice to SpaceX and ask you to reverse your close and let an experienced Admin do the honors. This was a bad close. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maurice Duplessis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of History6042 -- History6042 ( talk) 20:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It is fairly known here that the Pont-Duplessis was named after Maurice's father, Nérée. It's not so obvious for outsiders, and it becomes a common mistake. No idea why toponymiequebec, who should not make mistakes, are confused in their references.
Here are some strong sources that affirm that the bridge in question was named after Nérée Duplessis: 1 2 3
Congratulations on the translation of the french article. Duplessis is a huge part of our history and I'm glad the english article will also reflect it. Good job! Witcher of Izalith 02:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Did you ever get that issue you were having resolved. Excited that somebody is working on Quebec. 23:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Szmendarowiscki, I think you did a generally very good job with the Andy Ngo closing. That was a long discussion and not one that was easy to dig through. Of course, as you predicted someone was going to ask about it... I don't see that the discussion put much emphasis on if it was or wasn't appropriate to say "journalist" in the opening sentence or not. I'm not sure that question was asked or should have been answered. If there was no consensus wouldn't the placement follow where it already was? Thanks (and again, it is clear you put a lot of effort into the closing). Springee ( talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. There is no consensus to retain it in the first sentence, so this goes out, but generally, the yes side managed to get rough consensus for it to be used in the lead.
The latter user mentioned MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, a guideline which is very clear we ought to omit labels that are contentious in the first sentence of the lead.
causing, involving, or likely to cause disagreement and argument, and the term in this case causes disagreement. I don't see how MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE limits "contentious terms" only to terms that are contentious per se - and anyway you are always looking at how the term is applied to a particular person in question.
there may be consensus on an issue that was not actually the question being asked, since the question the participants discussed may differ from what was literally asked in the RfC promptand the other that
Another part of not interjecting your own opinion is not making a close that is wider than the scope of the question (after all, if the editors didn’t discuss it, they couldn’t have come to a decision on it)
it was demonstrated that sources cannot agree on whether to call him a journalist or not. Slim majority of sources is not consensus of sources. So this argument is relevant. (Note: I relied on whatever you chose as sources, so all the caveats apply: that the selection may not be representative, not all sources are reliable, in addition to those concerns I mentioned in the close.) Then you say that I also don't think it's logically consistent to claim that "journalist" is a contentious label thus cannot be in the first sentence but can be in the second sentence. I explained in the close what I see as the consensus of editors that
where relevant, i.e. when describing his career and controversies, the label can be in fact used. If he was employed as a journalist and that was a significant part of his career and that is in the body, then indeed you can mention it because that's a strong argument to include this in the lead. The discussion around his journalistic ethics is relevant. But mentioning it in the first sentence has no consensus because there is another strong argument that calling Ngo a journalist is contentious, as evidenced by the diverging labels that reliable sources use to describe Ngo. So even if it were in fact inconsistent, that was the balance of arguments and I reflected it well. But I think the closure is consistent and its implementation will comply with relevant policies and guidelines and the consensus that was reached in the discussion. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 10:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki, Nemov, I've opened a close review related to where the term can appear in the lead [11]. Springee ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I have updated the article according to your suggestion. Can you please review Template:Did you know nominations/Malayalam softcore pornography? Thilsebatti ( talk) 05:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, but I am afraid that va.cat does not work at all. It doesn't download anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
On 12 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Duplessis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that even though the Legislative Assembly of Quebec ordered a monument of Maurice Duplessis in front of its building, later premiers hid it for 16 years to avoid political tensions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maurice Duplessis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Maurice Duplessis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I think your comment here was intended in the sense of "Glad that the conversation is progressing constructively", but literally, it sounds like a suggestion that I wasn't listening. Wikipedia discussions are !votes. If several people say similar things, then the possibility that they are right and I am wrong has to be seriously considered, but that possibility has to be checked properly. I will happily acknowledge errors, but truth (or verifiable information in the Wikipedia sense) is not decided by votes, and generally not by a rapid conversation. Listening does not mean agreeing with invalid arguments or fallacies. Boud ( talk) 18:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
What about Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) and resulting states like Slovak Republic (1939–1945)? And I am sure we are forgetting about something else too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Trapped in the Closet (South Park) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo ( talk) 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis and Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo ( talk) 18:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis for comments about the article, and Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
On 12 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Premier Maurice Duplessis, angry at the fact that the federal government of Canada was taking taxes at the expense of the provinces, once demanded that Ottawa "return our loot"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Premiership of Maurice Duplessis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Premiership of Maurice Duplessis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Note. This is solely a talk page here. No barnstars, no DYK/GA/whatever notifications besides such that would be needed for Wikipedia's administrative purposes (such as warnings, ANI discussions, RfC/article help etc.) You are always welcome to talk to me. But please let's keep order. Any contributions that I consider worthwhile are here.
Hi, did you intend to refactor my comment (which I had changed earlier [1]) here? Or was it an accident? JBchrch ( talk) 11:25, 12 May 2021 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
Till your reached 500 edits you are not allowed to participate in I/P discussions on various boards.I will strike your comments. -- Shrike ( talk) 09:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the PA at the rfc either. That Hong Kong business correspondent? She wrote this headline for the Times in February 2020: “Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins.”
“Scientists,” the slug reads, “have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it’s the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.”
“Republican who floated virus conspiracy says ‘common sense has been my guide,'” the weekend editor at The Guardian dismissively explained.
“A GOP senator,” our award-winning Saudi investigator declared, “keeps pushing a thoroughly debunked theory that the Wuhan coronavirus is a leaked Chinese biological weapon gone wrong.”
“Sen. Tom Cotton Flogs Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Dismissed by Actual Scientists,” the editor of The Daily Beast howled.
“Tom Cotton’s veiled threats really aren’t helping,” Maddow’s blogger chimed in.
“Don’t Listen To Sen. Tom Cotton About Coronavirus,” our “media disinformation” boy piped up.
“Tom Cotton and the virus conspiracy theory,” the three-decades veteran of an Arkansas weekly blogged, citing a Vanity Fair write-up that maintained far more nuance than the grizzled blogger.
“Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) repeated a fringe theory,” the young Post staffer confidently led, “suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.” That “theory,” her headline definitively states, “was already debunked.”
“Senator Tom Cotton Ramps Up Anti-China Rhetoric,” Forbes’ “Under 30 community lead” righteously wrote.
“Tom Cotton,” CNN’s Chris Cillizza authoritatively declared, “is playing a dangerous game with his coronavirus speculation.” 2601:46:C801:B1F0:DCB9:7D2F:45A6:B333 ( talk) 15:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Keilar: Proof one of Trump's biggest lies didn't pass the smell test
New Day CNN's Brianna Keilar rolls the tape one year after peaceful protesters in Washington, DC, were tear gassed so former President Trump could walk to a church and display a Bible. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/06/01/tear-gas-washington-dc-protesters-trump-roll-the-tape-newday-vpx.cnn
The report says protests "were mostly peaceful during the day," but that officers reported that some protesters threw projectiles, such as bricks, rocks, caustic liquids, frozen water bottles, glass bottles, lit flares, rental scooters, and fireworks, at law enforcement officials. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/police-did-not-clear-d-c-s-lafayette-park-protestors-n1270126
and FTR that Hirsch fantasy piece about Trump's finances is 80percent proven false with the illegally leaked tax returns. Not true? Please show me where this Russian money is on the tax returns. That article predates the leaked returns and is proven mostly false with the tax return leak.
2601:46:C801:B1F0:C5E9:F45E:9426:59D2 (
talk) 22:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 09:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent articles, including Jan Żaryn, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 7 June 2021 (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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.
- GizzyCatBella 🍁 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin ( talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Long, so collapsible.
Complaint
|
---|
The article in question has been a subject of a rather heated discussion on what constitutes material inclusive which could be included in a BLP and which does not pass muster. These seem to be two sides, represented by u|Volunteer Marek (VM), u|GizzyCatBella and u|Lembit Staan on the one hand, and me, u|François Robere, u|Mhorg and u|CPCEnjoyer on the other. The article has already been subject of an apparent edit war (see history in late April and early this month), with the same change (being a translation of a "Criticism section" from Polish wiki, not ideal but mostly OK for inclusion in general) being reverted by VM six times, three of which in a 12-hour span. After that, an RfC on Jan Żaryn was started by a user which was later found to be a sock (discussion deleted, log), but he reposted content from the François Robere's proposal, which is in the archive, so for this one, I have no objections, the RfC was OK). Having determined that the proposal will stall until the article gets more scope on that person, I decided to do some expansion, noting that the content For various reasons, which I mostly dispute, however, I have seen wholesale deletion of article content for what I see are (mostly) spurious reasons and mere guises to delete content they don't like. To be clear, there has been some productive discussion, which means not all is lost, but I start to lose patience after further deliberation becomes more inflammatory and edit-war-provoking and less about moving forward. Please evaluate the following evidence and break the impasse. 1. Editors from the side of deletion misrepresent policy as regards consensus. They have tried to claim that since I (or other users) have not obtained their consensus before adding some info to the article, it is to be deleted until consensus is established. (first edit referencing an archived discussion on criticism section where only VM seemed to be a lone dissenter for most of the time, and it involved 3 active people). However, that interpretation goes contrary to WP:BOLD and is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP; this also is almost exactly the phrasing of "Please do not make [any more] changes without my/their/our approval", which is indicative of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (particularly as concerns VM). Such behaviour even has its own essay on Wikipedia. Some more context to that will be provided in the following points. 2. Editors have engaged in wholesale, and, in my view, mostly unjustified deletion of content. The users have raised several objections, but not everywhere and in such a way that they can hardly be interpreted as serious.
3. Allegations of tendentious editing/addition of undue material. I have repeatedly been accused of making tendentious edits on the article's subject, so far that I was accused of conspiring to add more "defamatory" material and of making an attack page. Actually, my reason of expansion was exactly for the page not to be or sound like one, as I have noted in my RfC vote (though I did agree that the Polish version of criticism was pretty OK as it stood). The users have repeatedly deleted information I have provided as if it was violating neutral point of view. In fact, I have only reported sources in WP:proportion to what I was aware was his coverage in reliable sources, with a particular focus on scholarly resources, and all of these were unanimous as far as my query went. The users in question have contributed NO additional material to his biography (other than the Szeligi house, which has nothing to do with Jan Żaryn personally at all), and instead mostly (apart from the productive discussions I've noted above) moaned about supposed BLPVIOs, UNDUEs etc., which more looked like WP:SEALIONing because they usually didn't offer any solution but to delete, nor did they offer any of their resources to show that indeed, there were RS sources casting him in positive light, even if I haven't found any in RS (because I haven't indeed). Finding more information (in proportion to the other side's coverage) is a way more productive way of rectifying any potential NPOV concerns than simply deleting ad nauseam. As a good illustration for that, they correctly found what I meant to write basing on the sources, which I couldn't formulate well (overexaggeration of szmalcownik claims about Jews, which is a point Libionka made in the work cited in the same sentence), but instead of correcting that, they chose to delete the whole sentence altogether.
|
Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Ummm, the big piece of info that you somehow manage to omit is the fact that THERE Was indeed sock puppetry by Icewhiz on the article. Like you provide this diff [2] of me “casting aspersions” or whatever, except... that account was indeed a sock puppet of Icewhiz, as confirmed by SPI, so my comment was 100% correct. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
here (deletion of whole paragraphs with a vague "yeah, the sourcing is too weak" even as the sources cited two scholars' opinions and had 3 sources to each claim)and you support this with a diff which is actually three or four different edits (why the diff says “intermediate revisions”). The edit where I said in edit summary that sourcing is week was actually this one [3]. The sourcing there is just Newsweek and Wyborcza, NOT “two scholars opinions and 3 sources to each claim”. So you accuse me of one thing and then present a diff that’s about something completely different. I’m sorry but that’s simply dishonest. Your whole write up is full of sneaky manipulations such as these. Of course you’re free to file whatever you want though. Volunteer Marek 16:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The key to "surviving" in difficult TAs is keeping your calm. If it means taking a break, take it. If it means reviewing your comments with fresh eyes, do it. There's a delicate balance to what we can and cannot say, and you should always keep at the back of your mind the consideration of how the community might read your words in the future - especially when dealing with difficult editors. Most editors are fine, and their objections eventually serve to hone the text; but problematic editors... they are who they are, and there's little that you or anyone else can, or should do to change them. You can employ a variety of strategies for dealing with them, but at end all you can really do is hope that at some point in the future they'll have a reckoning with the community, and make sure that you haven't worn out by then. François Robere ( talk) 12:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited In God We Trust, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington, KFOR and Doubleday.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
See wp:brd and WP:ONUS, if you are reverted you are supposed to make a case at talk. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I know this is embarrassing but can please explain what do you mean by "there's no need to restate the table."? Thanks Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the detailed close. Just one question: I think that the discussion was whether Rolling Stone was unreliable from 2011-Present (i.e. starting in 2011 and continuing through today); I'm wondering if you'd be willing to modify the close to explicitly state that, since "post-2011" would exclude 2011 itself.
Many thanks, — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
That was a useful edit to Polexit. What is missing now is any pro-EU political positions. It can be inferred from Tusk's remarks but would you be able to add some info about Civic Platform? Are there others that have parliamentary representation? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I saw you pinged him, Wikieditor was tbanned from IP area, in large part due to his behavior at the enclaves article. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As another tool in your toolbox, know that you can use little comments to note your changes in addition to, or instead of strikethorugh and underline.
François Robere (
talk) 09:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC) (Clarified alternatives 09:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC))
Since this relates to Wikipedia as a source, it should probably be listed under the Media, the arts, and architecture category. Mind if I add it? François Robere ( talk) 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the message you left at the review. I'd never done a DYK nomination before, but I wanted to get my fellow WP:Med member's work recognised properly, so I nominated this article, and I came up with what I thought was a great hook. I never imagined the hostility that would ensue. It's really discouraging, and I don't think I want to be involved in this anymore. So I probably won't be replying to your message on the thread. But I didn't want to not thank you for pointing out how wasteful this is. I personally find it really sad when something ends up being a low-quality version of what it should have been :( Dr. Vogel ( talk) 17:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey Szmenderowiecki,
I suggest pinging the user you mentioned there. I'm not sure it's required outside the OP's initial message, but it's good practice and will save both of you some grief. Cheers! François Robere ( talk) 13:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki,
You said What's saddest in all this discussion...
Without extending the prose on that page, what did you mean by that last part?
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 10:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey Szmenderowiecki. You and I got got off to a bad start, but since then I've seen you around and I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate the work that you do. Happy editing! JBchrch talk 19:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki,
I just wanted to discuss the applicability of
WP:SNOWBALL to the move requests at
Wrocław,
Kraków, and
Łódź.
WP:SNOWBALL states that The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view
. Given that the requests were only open for two days and that there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement, I believe that the decision to close the discussion is very premature.
Furthermore, in closing the discussion, how did you consider the strength of the arguments as per WP:DISCARD? I ask this because many of the comments either didn't cite policy or source reasons for their opposition despite both of those being used to support a move.
Thank you. -- Spekkios ( talk) 22:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Proper names in languages which use the Latin alphabet can include characters with diacritics, ligatures, and others that are not commonly used in present-day English. Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters.The best approximation I have seen is the ngram viewer, which actually gives a slight edge for Wrocław and Kraków and a slight edge for Lodz, but none of them are convincing enough to say "this is an obviously prevalent version", just some prevalence, with good evidence that the diacritic version will be used more in the future.
Accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. [...] Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example), which are less familiar to most American writers, editors and readers; such marks would be prone to error, and type fonts often lack characters necessary for consistency), to Wikipedia, being a global project written not only by people in the UK, US or other English-speaking countries, and where we don't have problems with type fonts, is certainly not a way to go. Instead of fighting the war on diacritics from your own sofa, I'd propose to do something else, something which is probably more productive.
The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.
The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions.I believed it proper to stop wasting other editors' time on what I saw was a foregone conclusion, based on the overwhelming opposition of the commenters. I have pointed out above which arguments I found persuasive and which were not exactly so or were properly debunked. In short, if you don't want to read the above piece, a host of other considerations were advanced, few of which have been addressed at that point but could have been, based on timestamps of the editors supporting the move, while the OPs stuck with COMMONNAME argument, which itself was on pretty shaky ground. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Huge thanks for your translation work on Maurice Duplessis ! I worked on the french version of the article. Hamza.Tabaichount ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your incisive comment. Jehochman Talk 03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You mention a certain User:DreamCatcher25 but such an editor does not exit. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Le Touquet weatherbox has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes ( talk) 17:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi! It takes some time before I could respond after you mentioned me in your comment about Warsaw Concentration Camp and Haaretz article. However, I’d rather not to participate in this discussion. Firstly, I don’t have a strong opinion on that matter – while I am rather against “Wikipedia articles focusing about what was written about these articles in other sources” I find difficult to identify the Wikipedia rules that clearly forbid mention the story from Haaretz. Secondly, I fully agree with you that it is mind-boggling that such a small footnote caused such controversy. Finally, this whole discussion is clearly fueled by the severe personal conflict, and I don’t want to be the part of it. Having said that… If I can be of any help regarding the Warsaw Concentration Camp or other Holocaust-related articles, I mean their substance, the sources etc., you can always approach me. Last but not least, let me congratulate you the brilliant expansion of the article Warsaw Concentration Camp. I hope that I find some time in 2022 to use some of the new sources you found (if you be so kind to share some of them, if needed), and use them to expand the article on pl.wiki. Cheers! Dreamcatcher25 ( talk) 09:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help with a Polish translation; I think Google translate is misleading me. I'm looking at this Tygodnik Nasza Polska article, which (tell me if I'm misreading) appears to be an editorial written by the publisher of TNP, and I'm reading things like "Żydzi roznosili tyfus, spekulanci wykupywali towar ze sklepów, antyszczepionkowcy zabierają miejsca w szpitalach itd. Zresztą wszystkie te grupy mają dużo więcej na „sumieniu”. Ale jedno ich łączy. Są wrogiem społeczeństwa i trzeba ich wyplenić." (Gtranslate: "Jews spread typhus, speculators bought goods from shops, anti-vaccines took places in hospitals, etc. Anyway, all these groups have much more on their "conscience". But they have one thing in common. They are the enemy of society and must be eradicated.") and "Trzeba też pokazać rozwiązanie: eksterminację Żydów, skazanie spekulantów, ograniczenie wolności dla antyszczepionkwców lub ich przymusowe wyszczepienie." (Gtranslate: "A solution must also be shown: the extermination of the Jews, the condemnation of the speculators, the restriction of freedom for anti-vaccinees or their forcible vaccinations.").
Here is my question: I can't figure out if the author is, in his own voice, advocating that Jews be exterminated, or if the author is drawing a parallel between people who say "Jews must be exterminated" and people who want to mandate vaccines or restrict the freedoms of anti-vaxxers? I can't figure out if this is like neonazi propaganda, or anti-vax propaganda, or not propaganda at all and I'm just totally misreading it? Thanks for any insight you can provide. Levivich 17:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Kolejną metodą jest tworzenie uprzedzeń, które łatwo wygenerować i upowszechnić poprzez częsty kontakt z zestawieniami pojęć z prostymi komunikatami: „muzułmanin – terrorysta”, „Żyd – tyfus”, „antyszczepionkowiec – epidemia, śmierć”.("Another method [of dividing the society] is the generation of prejudices that are easy to create and spread via frequent contact with juxtaposed terms that have an easy-to-decipher message: 'Muslim - terrorist', 'Jew - typhus', 'anti-vaxxer - epidemic, death'"). From these words I think you should have inferred that he does not consider any of these parallels to be right.
If you are going to write a close that is basically consensus against inclusion, then you might as well state as much. Just ignore !votes because they are just that: (not)-votes [See
WP:!VOTE].
I obviously don't agree with your close, but I would prefer if you are to actually close the discussion, you do so keeping in mind the guidance provided in
WP:NAC. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 18:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
To clarify: Is there a consensus against depreciation, or no consensus for depreciation? BilledMammal ( talk) 10:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I can say there is consensus for the publication to be listed as generally unreliable due to its indiscriminate publication of content, including conspiratorial and denialist pieces(emphasis in original). I think I couldn't have been clearer. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It's deprecated until it's un-deprecatedand that
We'd need an RFC of equal weight to reverse [the previous RFC]. To me, this would suggest that this wasn't to be considered a rerun, but a new RFC, that would require consensus to un-deprecated the source to un-deprecate it. This would also be in line with standard WP:NOCONSENSUS procedures. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source, which would imply that the source should not be deprecated if there is no community consensus for that. My determination is that currently there is none.
I will not really submit a vote herereduces that concern somewhat. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Normally, a no consensus outcome in this situation would result in the deprecation and blacklisting being upheld as the status quo. However, it was pointed out in the discussion that 112.ua had originally been added to the blacklist following an RfC that did not specifically address it. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Should CounterPunch be undeprecated?instead of
Should CounterPunch be deprecated?, the no consensus result would have resulted in CounterPunch remaining deprecated? BilledMammal ( talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Should CounterPunch be undeprecated?, would the RSP listing for CounterPunch still be "deprecated" rather than "generally unreliable"? BilledMammal ( talk) 14:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Talk:2022 Burkinabé coup d'état a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Talk:2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 09:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I was trying to close this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. So far as MEDRSness of the source was concerned, I was able to establish rough consensus for reliability, at least according to my understanding of policies and guidelines and the arguments presented in the discussion. However, I struggle to resolve the primary/secondary dispute, as the PAGs appear to contradict each other and interpretation may differ based on the point of reference which you take for the paper. Maybe there is no diverging interpretation, or I've messed up back at the time I've closed the previous discussion, but that closure seems sound, and I stand by the draft as proposed below.
Some admins will almost surely criticise me for long-winded closes, but I want to make clear that all arguments have been considered. The passage I have doubts about is in italics.
Rough consensus for reliability, source type impossible to determine.
Before I proceed with my justification, a question arose about whether excess mortality estimates, and allegations of undercounting, are
biomedical information. The relevant passage says:
Population data and epidemiology: Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc.
Estimates of excess mortality thus squarely belong to the biomedical information and
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should be used only. As to allegations of undercounting/cover-up, journalism may deliver some good information on that subject but that is not the case where the
WP:NEWSORGs override scholarship as what has been shown is that there is reason for caution (attribution is recommended in this case), but not evidence of falsification or fraud. There has been concern about undeclared conflict of interest regarding the interference of censors, but the BMJ article still stands without correction so far, nor have any examples from other scientists been provided about the problem with the paper that trace to the Chinese censors.
We should only dismiss the paper if hard evidence for wrongdoing appears, and
we are not peer-reviewers and shouldn't substitute their judgment for ours, as a few editors have noted.
A lot of !votes unfortunately conflated reliability with primary/secondary concerns.
Secondary ≠ good, primary ≠ bad. It's true we should generally avoid primary sources for MEDRS content, but that's separate from reliability. Therefore, as for reliability, several editors have noted that the BMJ is a respected publication for MEDRS content, and indeed it is given as an example of a good journal in the guideline; no peer review or accuracy issues were presented as published by scholars, other than the general speculation about Chinese scholarship's suspectness due to COVID-19 censorship. Mere suspicion is not enough, however. So this source belongs to MEDRS, unlike, say, The Economist or the Financial Times.
As for the primary vs. secondary aspect, it appears that my closure was linked to this discussion. It is definitely applicable here, but I am at crossroads here as regards determination of whether this is primary or secondary for their estimate of excess mortality.
Per this source (University of Minnesota), "data compilations" are considered secondary sources, and this paper is surely one; this is also what
WP:SECONDARY would say, as they present their own analysis of China CDC, police, hospital, and other data - and that's why the
previous closure I made came to an AFAIK uncontroversial conclusion that the political science paper was a secondary source. At the same time
according to this source (Georgia State) this would be a primary source as an original method for estimation was devised by the scientists, and that fits the definition in
WP:MEDDEF, as this is not a meta-analysis, it doesn't make concrete recommendations and does not provide "an overview of current understanding of the topic". In my view, the policies are contradictory and do not allow for a black-and-white determination of the type of source.
I will also add, outside of the closure, that allegations of undercounting by experts in their domain of expertise (virology/epidemiology) (i.e. not e.g. a researcher of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, see Boston Herald piece) may be mentioned, with the annotation that they are unproven yet, as no concrete evidence appeared that the data was totally flawed. The more recent the allegations are, the better, but the allegations should not be overriding peer-reviewed scholarship. The scientists who do not trust the estimates are free to present their calculations in peer-reviewed journals, and we will balance them accordingly.
Any thoughts about how to resolve it? Pinging all participants of the discussion: @ Corinal, Bakkster Man, CutePeach, Thucydides411, Alexbrn, Nableezy, Shibbolethink, Jumpytoo, VQuakr, TolWol56, LondonIP, Francesco espo, My very best wishes, NavjotSR, ProcrastinatingReader, Only in death, ScrumptiousFood, Adoring nanny, Compassionate727, Azuredivay, Davide King, Chalst, Valjean, Roxy the dog, and Pious Brother: Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"It's true we should generally avoid primary sources for MEDRS content, but that's separate from reliability"← No, it's central to reliability. Much primary research is wrong, which is why the validating layer of an appropriate secondary source is generally required for any assertion of fact. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge.It's not as if primary is automatically unusable, but we shouldn't devote much space to it. If, however, it is secondary - which is the issue - then we may use it more broadly. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources). It doesn't seem as if the source is insignificant (in fact, we have 31 citations to it). The arguments that tried to prove the UNDUE point weren't strong as they were trying to use popular press (FT, The Economist, Boston Herald etc.) as counterbalance, and it is surely not MEDRS-compliant.
In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. These publications, which may be in peer-reviewed journal articles or in some other form, are often called the primary literature to differentiate them from unpublished sources.This doesn't seem to clarify the situation, as it relies on data to derive conclusions about data (yeah, secondary!) which themselves may be considered data (oh, still primary). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll note I much prefer Szmenderowiecki's first proposed close of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 369#Is the specific study this discussion originated with (BMJ) reliable? to the close of Amadeus1999 that we eventually ended up with. The fault here really lies with the unintended consequences of measures in MEDRS intended to eliminate poor quality sources that in fact interfere with our ability to apply our neutrality and verifiability policies. I've been meaning to propose changes to MEDRS for approaching a year now; perhaps this outcome will concentrate minds on the failures of those guidelines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [ [4]] Cheers Elinruby ( talk) 02:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all of your concerns/comment about the Vitamin A DYK. (I could not find "etiological". Thank you for the DYK review and the prompts to improve the article. The GA reviewer had mentioned that this was their first GA review, and I had been worried much was missed. I dropped that person a note to look at the DYK as a lesson. David notMD ( talk) 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There's no template for that, but please don't do that again. There was a good reason to remove the IP's comment (it's entirely non-constructive). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.(the guy reverted your edit and you insisted on the removal regardless) and WP:RUC says that
It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.(it wasn't obviously vandalism or trolling; it could be just geniune belief in a certain (misguided) theory that an IP sought to push on the talk page). There's also the fact that
Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.I didn't see any ad hominems there, just incivility (rather mild in my experience of talk pages) and off-topic rants.
Let the gaslight burn bright!seems like a rather clear accusation of gaslighting, and given the IP's otherwise non-collaborative behaviour (they seem more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, and haven't presented a single source despite multiple requests), and given past disruption in the topic area, their comment is hard to distinguish from trolling, even if it might not be "obvious" to an external observer (context matters! what is "obvious" trolling is not quite the same thing everywhere...). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
if you are arguing with an idiot, try to make sure he isn't doing the same. Keeping this in mind often helps not escalating needless disputes. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to 2022 French presidential election: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 ( talk) 10:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, it's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talleyrand6 ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The RFC you have closed as a technical matter, fine, but directing the closer to take that RFC into account in the subsequent RFC is wrong, it is a different question and it is not part of the other RFC. Re your close of the split discussion, it seems clear that there IS a consensus, not to split? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Note. This section has been moved from the talk page of the article.
Szmenderowiecki, I think your closing is problematic in light of Peter Gulutzan's review of what Merchants of Doubt actually says. It does appear that the weight given to that source is UNDUE given the actual claims being made by the source. Additionally, by weight of numbers I do not see a consensus for content in the lead. At best this should be a no-consensus and probably a remove from lead based on possibly failing wp:V (I think that last one should have more discussion before concluding it's a WP:V problem). Springee ( talk) 13:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The “article” -- never published in a scientific journal, but summarized in the Wall Street Journal -- repeated a wide range of debunked claims, including the assertion that there was no warming at all.[footnote] It was mailed to thousands of American scientists, with a cover letter signed by Seitz inviting the recipients to sign a petition against the Kyoto Protocol.Frederick Seitz indeed sent out a petition along with a copy of the article. (The book refers to the petition in a prior footnote but the online edition http://petitionproject.org has apparently changed since then because it now mentions a later article.) I've seen the Wall Street Journal article described as an "op-ed", do you disagree with that? The book's statement that I've quoted does not say that the Wall Street Journal editorial board endorsed the claims, do you disagree with that? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 17:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author." This does not mean, however, that the newspaper must disagree with the view simply because it's an op-ed not an editorial; it simply means that the newspaper does not necessarily agree with what that person says. Now, as I said and as has been practice for major newspaper industry players (including WSJ), op-eds, even if they are not supposed to be the editorial board's opinion and are supposed to reflect all worldviews, often tend to mirror the editorial board's (and this is what WSJ itself admitted back in 1998). This, of course, was not considered when I was writing the closure as no one made that argument, but I assumed this statement as a fact that reflects the current state of the press industry, which apparently wasn't obvious.
the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If it is present in the article in a meaningful way (it is), it should be summarised, that's it. Arguments that said we shouldn't summarise the stuff in the body were discarded. Weight may be discussed (see MOS:LEADREL), but presence is ordered by policy. Additionally, sourcing was provided/is provided to support the claim that "the editorial board has promoted", as some editors have disputed the phrasing. My finding boils down to two things: sourcing is there and is good enough (except for the lead sentence, which needs another more recent ref, e.g. among those in the article), and policy orders us to summarise everything in the text.
I've opened a close review here [7]. Springee ( talk) 03:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warsaw concentration camp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 21:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I added three sources to Wee Sing. I think it easily passes notability now. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can you help me understand what just happened there? While I certainly agree the article should be deleted (I nominated it, after all), I only nominated it a day ago, so I'm confused by the fast closure, as I was under the impression seven days were usually required for non-admin closure. How does that work? Thanks! PianoDan ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gordon Klein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 23:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at
WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the
deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the
new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
On 19 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Suwałki Gap, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Suwałki Gap is often described as the modern version of the Cold War–era Fulda Gap, a NATO vulnerability of historical importance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Suwałki Gap. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Suwałki Gap), 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.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 19,790 views (824.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 02:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 [a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size. [b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
There is a new template available, {{
NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15245 articles, as of 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Re this edit, I reacted to the article appearance on my watchlist, saw the typo and, in thinking about correcting it, read part of the surrounding text and reacted to problems I thought I saw there. I didn't recall that there was another mention of the flaperon and didn't look more widely so as to see that -- I should have. I've been interested in the article from the start due to its relation to some of my background and personal interests. I see here that I have edited it a number of times -- probably lately mostly, lately, in reaction to seeing it on my watchlist. There is really no reason I ought to be following it. I've removed it from my watchlist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Please don't continue to re-add that sentence to the lead. Doing so without an edit summary makes it look like you just tried to "slip it by me" 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
If THAT station has broken a max temp record, then the cited source will update it, and then you may update the table. But not before. You can write it down in a note so as not to forget it if you are very interested but foremost, please respect the integrity of the sources.--Asqueladd ( talk) 21:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
You have tempted me with "All the power of convincing me to do more for Wikipedia in more needed subjects is nowhere else than in your brain and your fingers striking against the keyboard".
As you can see the history section of Ukraine is far too long. I asked on the talk page a couple of times but no-one has come forward to shorten it. Of course this would be a very hard task - but I suspect you have the skills to be able to do it. Any chance you could make an attempt - still useful and no shame if you give up part way through. Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki, I have just had to reclose three DYK nominations that you originally closed at the end of last month because they weren't closed properly, leaving some internal templates, fields and comments that don't belong in a closed nom. You need to subst the entire outer DYKsubpage template for the nomination to close the way they were designed.
The instructions for closing a failed nomination are at Template talk:Did you know#How to remove a rejected hook. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them as best I can. Thanks for your work at DYK. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki,
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Szmenderowiecki, I highly recommend you review the link which I have posted in the discussion as the information may be relevant. Please let me know if you have any questions on the contents. Carter00000 ( talk) 06:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Carter00000 Thanks for the link. As I said, I do not wish to escalate to ANI or else I'd have posted it on ANI directly after having some more chat with the user. Besides, as I said, a lot of Alsoriano97's work is indeed useful, so it's just a matter for resolving without escalating to blocks, unless this behaviour still repeats. Also, I've had no talkpage interaction so far that suggests something is wrong. So I cannot forbid you to pursue another sanction, but that's definitely not my goal. Just resolve some points of disagreement Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 07:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review for Kiwi Farms external link RfC. Endwise ( talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
Suggestions:
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The filing is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alsoriano97. Please provide any information on background or specific incidents if you would like to. Carter00000 ( talk) 13:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for closing the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol. To clarify, does your closure mean that there's enough consensus to change "our Solar System" to "the Solar System" on Milky Way? That's how I'd read your closure, but I'm not sure since another editor seems to have disagreed. Thanks, Some1 ( talk) 23:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
that rfc never reached consensus, it was simple closed2)
for non admins, WP:RCON is not really a thing, otherwise, see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and/or take it to talk, and 3)
Doesn't work that way, take it to talk per WP:BRD. There was no consensus, the closing (non-admin) editors remarks were simple another opinion (and slightly incorrect at that). There is no rule against uninvolved non-admins closing RfC discussions and you were well in your rights to close the discussion. Thoughts? Some1 ( talk) 01:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
So, one by one, per your closing statement, no policy (NPOV) was violated. That actually kicks out MOS:OUR and WP:PRONOUN arguments, they are based on that policy. No guidance from the IAU, only observations of usage at ESA and no statements from NASA (link was simply an anonymous writer making an unreferenced claim on a kids page, and contradicting that usage further down the same page) leave us at no guidance. So it boiled down to a split of "I like it"/"i don't like it" arguments, with MOS:STYLERET thrown in. That's a "No consensus" or "leave it and let it close its self" result.
Per
Some1 actions - please note WP:PROJECT ----> "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles."
So that brings us back to
Talk:Milky Way where there are ample RfCs, although another one can always be started.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (
talk) 04:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective, which is
unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader- hardly an endorsement for ever writing in first person, with the exception of quotes and some isolated cases. Those !voting for option C tried to say "our" could be used figuratively, but further arguments for using this exception were not developed; and no one indicated in the arguments that this was one of the isolated cases in which we should say the guideline does not apply. Therefore, I considered the MOS:OUR/WP:PRONOUN argument to be rooted in a reasonable interpretation of the guideline and I accepted it.
This will generate a lot of drama for no gain", so this is where I plan to leave it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your closure of the SOC-8 Rfc, more long-winded closures like this, please. Good job; thanks for your time and your effort. Mathglot ( talk) 10:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
West Herzegovina Canton has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki,
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Szmenderowiecki, thank you for closing
Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Mark Milley apology. You said that there is clearly no consensus to retain the fragment
. I construe this as a call for removal. Can you please execute the removal of the sentence? I would do it myself, but it's contentious article, as I'm sure you know, and I don't want to step on any toes. Thank you.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers
talk 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
(Moved from
Talk:Donald Trump) @
Szmenderowiecki: You wrote that WP:ONUS dictates that it is up to those seeking to include content to rally consensus. As of the moment of writing, the sentence is included in the article. A discussion preceded this RfC.
Were you under the impression that the sentence was added recently since you mentioned the discussion that took place a month ago? The sentence was
added to the section almost three years ago.
WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's a bit vague but I read that to mean "those seeking to add disputed content." The proponents of the RfC were seeking to remove long-standing content. The RfC proposer's question "Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now)" may have led some readers to believe that it is recently added content. The proposer should have asked whether "the sentence below should be removed from the article." Also, this
cute move,
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, really? I haven’t decided whether I want to do something about this or not, so for now I’m unarchiving the RfC to see what other editors think.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
in discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.I actually did not quote that sentence for some reason (I should have), but there you go. You should present some very good reason why the result of the "no consensus" closure should be the return to status quo. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 10:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This belongs at the article talk page please reinstate it there, where I will add my voice to SpaceX and ask you to reverse your close and let an experienced Admin do the honors. This was a bad close. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maurice Duplessis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of History6042 -- History6042 ( talk) 20:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It is fairly known here that the Pont-Duplessis was named after Maurice's father, Nérée. It's not so obvious for outsiders, and it becomes a common mistake. No idea why toponymiequebec, who should not make mistakes, are confused in their references.
Here are some strong sources that affirm that the bridge in question was named after Nérée Duplessis: 1 2 3
Congratulations on the translation of the french article. Duplessis is a huge part of our history and I'm glad the english article will also reflect it. Good job! Witcher of Izalith 02:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Did you ever get that issue you were having resolved. Excited that somebody is working on Quebec. 23:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Szmendarowiscki, I think you did a generally very good job with the Andy Ngo closing. That was a long discussion and not one that was easy to dig through. Of course, as you predicted someone was going to ask about it... I don't see that the discussion put much emphasis on if it was or wasn't appropriate to say "journalist" in the opening sentence or not. I'm not sure that question was asked or should have been answered. If there was no consensus wouldn't the placement follow where it already was? Thanks (and again, it is clear you put a lot of effort into the closing). Springee ( talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. There is no consensus to retain it in the first sentence, so this goes out, but generally, the yes side managed to get rough consensus for it to be used in the lead.
The latter user mentioned MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, a guideline which is very clear we ought to omit labels that are contentious in the first sentence of the lead.
causing, involving, or likely to cause disagreement and argument, and the term in this case causes disagreement. I don't see how MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE limits "contentious terms" only to terms that are contentious per se - and anyway you are always looking at how the term is applied to a particular person in question.
there may be consensus on an issue that was not actually the question being asked, since the question the participants discussed may differ from what was literally asked in the RfC promptand the other that
Another part of not interjecting your own opinion is not making a close that is wider than the scope of the question (after all, if the editors didn’t discuss it, they couldn’t have come to a decision on it)
it was demonstrated that sources cannot agree on whether to call him a journalist or not. Slim majority of sources is not consensus of sources. So this argument is relevant. (Note: I relied on whatever you chose as sources, so all the caveats apply: that the selection may not be representative, not all sources are reliable, in addition to those concerns I mentioned in the close.) Then you say that I also don't think it's logically consistent to claim that "journalist" is a contentious label thus cannot be in the first sentence but can be in the second sentence. I explained in the close what I see as the consensus of editors that
where relevant, i.e. when describing his career and controversies, the label can be in fact used. If he was employed as a journalist and that was a significant part of his career and that is in the body, then indeed you can mention it because that's a strong argument to include this in the lead. The discussion around his journalistic ethics is relevant. But mentioning it in the first sentence has no consensus because there is another strong argument that calling Ngo a journalist is contentious, as evidenced by the diverging labels that reliable sources use to describe Ngo. So even if it were in fact inconsistent, that was the balance of arguments and I reflected it well. But I think the closure is consistent and its implementation will comply with relevant policies and guidelines and the consensus that was reached in the discussion. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 10:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki, Nemov, I've opened a close review related to where the term can appear in the lead [11]. Springee ( talk) 12:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I have updated the article according to your suggestion. Can you please review Template:Did you know nominations/Malayalam softcore pornography? Thilsebatti ( talk) 05:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, but I am afraid that va.cat does not work at all. It doesn't download anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
On 12 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Duplessis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that even though the Legislative Assembly of Quebec ordered a monument of Maurice Duplessis in front of its building, later premiers hid it for 16 years to avoid political tensions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maurice Duplessis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Maurice Duplessis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I think your comment here was intended in the sense of "Glad that the conversation is progressing constructively", but literally, it sounds like a suggestion that I wasn't listening. Wikipedia discussions are !votes. If several people say similar things, then the possibility that they are right and I am wrong has to be seriously considered, but that possibility has to be checked properly. I will happily acknowledge errors, but truth (or verifiable information in the Wikipedia sense) is not decided by votes, and generally not by a rapid conversation. Listening does not mean agreeing with invalid arguments or fallacies. Boud ( talk) 18:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
What about Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) and resulting states like Slovak Republic (1939–1945)? And I am sure we are forgetting about something else too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Trapped in the Closet (South Park) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo ( talk) 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis and Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo ( talk) 18:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis for comments about the article, and Talk:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
On 12 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Premiership of Maurice Duplessis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Premier Maurice Duplessis, angry at the fact that the federal government of Canada was taking taxes at the expense of the provinces, once demanded that Ottawa "return our loot"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Premiership of Maurice Duplessis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Premiership of Maurice Duplessis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.