User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi! I see that you are currently using Twinkle, that's great! But for a more faster, easier, and more effective way to remove and spot vandalism is with Huggle, with Huggle all the warnings are given out automatically and vandalism is removed with one push of a button on your keyboard, there's even more great features with Huggle! All you need is the rollback rights to use Huggle. I highly recommended it, it's fun and easy to use. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Thegooduser Nice to hear from you. How are you doing? I did actually get rollback rights a while back specifically to help me familiarise myself with Huggle, but I didn't get on with it at first, and haven't had the time or motivation to continue, so I've stuck with what I know at the moment. Maybe I'll have another bash at it later. I'm glad you're finding it useful, though. I'll have to get you to teach me later on if I get stuck; I'm never averse to learning new tricks! One of these days I must get back into using AWB - the Wikipedia equivalent of Photoshop. Far too many buttons - daren't press any of them! On a related note, I had a very interesting Skype call with a University of Minnesota researcher yesterday who was investigating editor opinions of ORES... ...not that I know much about that either! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I really need to get off wiki and study for my history and english test lol... But for Huggle, at first I did not even understand anything at all! It was very confusing at the start, but now it's really easy, I even wrote a quick start for Huggle's Instruction manual, I made it so it's very easy to understand, and for AWB, I don't even know how to install it! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I literally only use the spacebar and the letters q and s for huggle, nothing else. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

• 
• 
• 
• 

Good news: the (lengthy!) script draft 1 is complete!

Hello, I am happy to share that script draft 1 is complete and ready for public comment.

The script (link to the Google doc) is much longer than I anticipated, at almost 21 pages!

Although I think that the 21 page script would be a very good introduction to referencing policies and workflows, I am considering dividing it into two or more smaller scripts that would be produced as separate videos. For example, one script could focus on policies and a different script could focus on how to use the citation tool. I am considering this for three reasons:

• People may be more willing to watch shorter videos that have more specific focus.
• Shorter videos may be easier to search for an answer for a single specific question.
• There is a possibility that if I attempt to produce a single video from almost 21 pages of script that I might exceed the budget for this mini-project. I would like for both WMF and the community to be satisfied with the results from this mini-project, and I think that dividing the script into smaller scripts which could be produced separately would be a good way to ensure that the budget for the current grant is not exceeded. While there is a reasonable possibility that I could finish production of the entire 21 pages of script within the current grant, I think that dividing the script would be prudent. After one of the smaller scripts is fully produced within the currently available funding, remaining script could be considered for production within the current grant if there seems to be adequate remaining funds, or could be saved for possible production with a future grant.

Request for constructive criticism and comments

I would very much appreciate constructive criticism and comments regarding the script, preferably by March 10 at 11:59 PM UTC. This is a shorter time window than I would like to provide, but the planned end date for this project is March 14 and I would like to finish video production by the end of March 13 so that I have 24 hours for communications before the grant period ends. If you would like to review the script or make other comments but the end of March 10 is too soon for you, please let me know that you need more time, and I will take that into consideration as I plan for final production and consider whether to request a date extension from WMF. (Extending the finish date for the project would not involve requesting additional funding for the current grant.) I would prefer that the video be done perfectly a few days late than that the video be done on March 14 but have an important error that was not caught during a rush to the finish.

I have three specific requests for feedback:

1. Please find errors in the script. This is a great time to find problems with my work, before the script goes into production and problems become more expensive to fix. Please go to this link in Google Docs and use the Comment feature in the Google Doc.

2. Do you have comments regarding whether the script should be divided, and if so, how it should be divided? Please let me know on the project talk page.

3. How do you feel about the name for the video? Do you prefer "Referencing with VisualEditor" or "Citing sources with VisualEditor", or a third option? Again, please comment on the project talk page. However, if I divide the script then I will create new names for the smaller videos.

Closing comments

Thank you for your interest in this mini-project. I am grateful to be working on a project which I hope will help Wikipedia contributors to be more efficient and effective, and indirectly help to improve Wikipedia's quality by teaching contributors how to identify and to cite reliable sources. I believe that the finished video will be good, and I hope that the community and novice contributors will find the video to be very useful.

Yours in service,

--Pine✉ 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Need your help to review 2019 Bandipur forest fires Page

Dear Nick Moyes, Hope you are good :) As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire I have created a Wikipedia article 2019 Bandipur forest fires, Need your help to review the same.
--Naveen N Kadalaveni —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, NaveenNkadalaveni. You did a good job with that one - well done. I've NPP-ed the article and have tidied it up a little. Be careful not to cut and paste content from newspapers. You only did it a little, and I've removed the worst bits for you. I was confused by one section saying that there had been no large mammal deaths because they had all moved into the core area of the Park, wheareas later you write that there was severe damage in the core area, and one of the references shows the antlers of a a dead antelope. - You might want to look into that conflict. Clearly, this is a develooping story, so I hope you will add sections to the article once more information becomes available on the ecological impact of the fires. Very sad to read about, indeed. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, Thank you so much for your time and efforts for reviewing & for tweaking the article. Regarding causalities part, News articles reported like "There are no estimates yet of the number of casualties in the fire. Wildlife officials say that while bigger mammals like tigers and leopards may have fled the Bandipur Tiger Reserve and taken refuge in neighbouring areas, reptiles, which are slow-moving, would have borne the brunt." Link.
one of the references shows the antlers of a a dead antelope--> Some dead animals pics were widely shared across facebook & whatsapp, some news papers did the Facts Check and confirmed that, those photos were fake and those photos were part of California wild fire. Though some animals have been killed by this wildfire due to 2019 Bandipur forest fires, official confirmation has not given yet. I have expanded the article by removing conflict sentences and added some additional information based on the latest data available. Will definitely, update the article once this subject gets certain constant data. --Regards, Naveen N Kadalaveni (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@NaveenNkadalaveni: Brilliant! That's the kind of high quality editorial input I like to see. Thank you for checking out those statements. It's a really sad story, and yet another tale that reaffirms my belief that our species will never adequately protect the biodiversity of this planet whilst the pressures upon it continue to grow. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment at WP:Teahouse#can't_read_media_description_page

Hi! I noticed that in your comment at that page, you suggested two commercial products by Google. In general, it would be better to suggest only free/libre/open-source software and services, or at least not advertise one specific company's products over others. Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 12:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. Other responses are available. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard/Workshop/Issues/March 2019

(PLEASE NOTE: THIS ISSUE WILL BE MAILED MANUALLY DUE TO THE SHEER LACK OF SIZE OF THIS NEWSPAPER. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE HERE TO RECIEVE THE NEWSLETTER. THANK YOU FOR READING THIS NOTICE.)

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the March 2019 issue of TheWikiWizard.

• What's Hot! (Don't be tempted to click the button!)
• Articles (Tips and More!)
• Editor's Notes (How to spread the Sunshine, A Successful RFB .....)
• Activity Page (Fun Activities, this time with some trick questions)
• Ads (Ads)

Hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Nick Moyes,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar

	Teahouse Barnstar
	for this reply ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine, that's very kind of you. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I haven't disappeared off the face of the Earth, I'm just busy. I'm still interested in adoption (and asking questions when I have them), but school has been much more of a time commitment recently. The polar vortex and cold weather earlier this year has kind of caused chaos when it comes to getting everything done that needs to be done within the same timeframe. Clovermoss (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Clovermoss. No problem. I fully understand - I'm pretty stressed out of my head with impending deadlnes, too. Nevertheless, I'm here and will do my best to support you as much as I can. We should always bear in mind that real world commitments are more important than online ones. Just remember to ping me if you should contact me off this page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on.    — The Transhumanist   04:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Andy Nisbet

On 17 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andy Nisbet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mountaineer Andy Nisbet (pictured) created more than 1,000 new winter climbing routes in Scotland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andy Nisbet. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Andy Nisbet), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• When you use rollback you will be able to get a confirmation prompt on most wikis. It asks you if you wanted to do the rollback. This is to avoid misclicks. You will have to opt in to get it. On German Wikipedia it will be an opt-out feature from 28 March. [1][2]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Admins will be able to block someone from editing a page or a namespace. This already works on a few Wikimedia wikis. You can read more. If your wiki wants to be an early tester of this, you can tell the developers. [3]
• Toolforge will shut down the Ubuntu Trusty job grid. This will happen the week of 25 March. Tools that use this grid needs to be moved to the new Debian Stretch job grid. If they haven't, they will be taken offline. Maintainers can restart the tools later. Users may not be able to use them in the meanwhile. You can see a list of affected tools.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Assistant Required

Dear Member I need some assistant I new to wiki and so far only made two edits, I was wondering what wiki position on information that in pop magazines from 80's as some information in these magazines of in even pop annuals are not found on the internet, I am I allowed to you these content or is wiki information just internet information based. for example I have 10 different bros articles including advertisements from record companies like HMV, Virgin megastore, Ourprice which clear state BROS WHEN WILL I BE FAMOUS WORLD WIDE SALES WERE 3 MILLION am I allowed to use the content as reference

I would appreciate some advice advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosisboss (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brosisboss. First off, we always post new messages at the bottom of talkpages - and certainly not at some random point in the middle, as you did! As you see, I've moved it down now.

You ask a good question, and the answer is 'probably, yes'. We are happy for you to cite a source which is only available in print, provided it's printed in a reliable source, and not, say, taken from a 'reader's letter' of opinion pieces. Both of our editing tools have a small selection of popular templates for you to cite books, websites, journals, and newspapers. To start with, just use the cite book template that's offered to you. However, we do have a special one for citing magazines which you can use if you're happy to try it. It's {{cite magazine}}. Remember to put old references into context. e.g.: By the end of 1982, Bros had sold 3 million copies(insert your ref), though by 2012 sales had reached 5 million.(insert second reference)" (Or put both references together at the end of the one sentence.

Hope this helps. Feel free to pop back or ask at the Teahouse if you want us to check anything, and please sign every talkpage post by typing four keyboard tilde characters right at the very end before you hit 'publish changes' (like this: ~~~~) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2 short version

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2

• 
• 
• 
• 

Hi! The full version of this newsletter issue has a lot of information. I am sending a short version to talk pages.

The most important information to know is that draft 2 is finished, that the single long script has been divided into many smaller scripts, and that portions of the script have been prioritized for production.

Due to budget constraints, not all scripts can be produced within the scope of the current pilot grant, but the other scripts will remain available for potential future production. (This project feels somewhat like doing a vehicle repair when the mechanic starts to work on the engine, and once the mechanic gets under the engine and starts to work, they discover that accomplishing their objective requires twice as much time as they first had estimated.) However, nothing is lost, so do not fear. Overall, my assessment (me being User:Pine) is that this project is producing a lot of good output and is generally a valuable pilot project.

For more information, including my requests for your feedback, please see the full version of the newsletter.

Thanks very much. --Pine(✉) 23:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious

helping new users

Thank you for being so helpful at the Teahouse and other places by helping new users; for helping fight vandalism; for reviewing new pages; for creating well-written and interesting articles about geographical features like Brenva Glacier - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 14:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, SkyGazer 512 - thanks a million! I wasn't aware of the WP:Precious project which it looks like you guys have been reviving. I'm honoured, though maybe its the newer users who really deserve the encouragement that such a lovely award like this gives. (Do keep your eyes on TheGoodUser and Mstrojny - the former a majorly enthusiastic young editor with the promise of being one of our really great editors; the later a reformed vandal who, after living out their block, has taken on a wonderfully responsible approach to contributing here.) They both deserve it more than me! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I only knew about the project after I was given the precious award myself. Imo, you definitely deserve this award, but it's true that constructive newer users may be the ones who need the encouragement. I've ran into Thegooduser several times; he definitely does a wonderful job vandalism-fighting. I've never heard of Mstrojny, but I think it's great when editors who have previously edited disruptively turn themselves around into constructive users.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 23:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for always being so kind to users, both new and experienced. I especially appreciate all the work you do at the Teahouse. You clearly have the project and its contributors' best interests at heart. Thanks again for all you do and keep up the good work. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for sticking with me and helping me throughout my wiki account history :) Jeriqui123 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeriqui123. Despite what might have seemed like a 'no' to your question asked at the Teahouse today, don't be put off from sticking around there and seeing how people help one another. Once you have gained more practical experience of editing articles, and of solving some of the problems for yourself, I'm sure you'll be able to help out with answering the odd question - especially where you can speak from the experience of a brand new editor and empathise well with others who might be struggling. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you so much for helping me be the best editor I can possibly be at the Teahouse. I had a troubled start in 2013 when I got blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia. When I requested unblock in 2017, my requests got declined because I have evaded by block. It was in 2019 when I finally convinced admins (including the blocking admin) that I could be trusted again and I proved them right. It is unfortunate that many blocked editors who seek unblock have their unblock requests declined. Some of them has their talk page access removed. I'm glad that never happened to me. Since I got unblocked, I have working very hard to become the best editor I could possibly be with the help of other editors, including you. You have helped me when I was at doubts about editing. I try to learn from my mistakes as much as I can. I hope you keep doing your best and look forward to helping me soon. You also do a wonderful job helping others at the Teahouse. I hope you have a wonderful day and happy editing! Mstrojny (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Mstrojny - that's very kind of you. It's really great to see you contributing positively. I hope everyone is treating you fairly? In a way, it's actually you who deserves the barnstar for being open and honest, and for turning things around. Looking forward to seeing you helping out in all sorts of places.

I don't know how old you were when you first caused trouble and got yourself blocked, but I'm going to guess fairly young? Anyway, because of that, I'm going to ping Thegooduser - a young lad with enormous enthusiasm for Wikipedia and potential here who has taken the brilliant initiative of putting together a brand new newsletter. It's produced by young editors and written for young editors, and is called The Wikiwizard. It struck me that he might be interested in inviting you to write a piece for a forthcoming edition of their newsletter about how you first got involved in bad faith editing, how you felt and how you dealt with being blocked and how you've now turned completely around to being a net positive contributor, or something along those lines. I don't want to embarrass either you or him (each is free to say no) but I am just going to play matchmaker for a moment and see if you'd be interested in working with one another. If so, hopefully he'll get in touch with you sometime. All the very best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)  

I'm happy to work with anyone who is willing to work with me. Mstrojny (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you Nick Moyes for your input and advice! KaiserJohn (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Your work at Teahouse is stellar. Don't let yourself convince yourself otherwise. John from Idegon (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Than you, John. But you give some mighty fine answers there, too! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Adoption

I'm thinking that I might want to become an adoptee given the amount of questions I ask and my plans to continue to edit on Wikipedia. I created my account in September 2018 (you were actually the first user to welcome me), so I've been around awhile. I've also made 518 edits (293 of which have been to mainspace). A lot of my edits have been adding short descriptions or fixing typos, but I'm quite proud of my edits to PC Optimum and Draft: Katherine Hughes (activist). @SkyGazer 512: has been incredibly helpful for a lot of my questions as well as the Teahouse when I've had them, but being an adoptee might be a better long-term route for me. I guess the other thing I should mention is that I'm also a female editor; one of the interests is contributing to Women in Red, but I'm also interested in other topics such as video games and topics related to Canada (since I'm Canadian). Clovermoss (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I fixed my ping to another editor. I also wanted to mention another one of my interests is translating French. Clovermoss (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Clovermoss, thanks for contacting me, and for the update. I am just drafting a reply to you in the affirmative. You'll get a notification from me when I post it, but I'll be doing so from another page, not this one. I thought it might be a good idea to keep related conversations about 'adoption' all in one place. You'll be able to find it at User talk:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss in a few minutes. I won't be replying immediately to anything you might then add, because the UK is in UTC time, so I'm off to bed shortly as it's nearly 1 am here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'll take a look at it. Just a heads up about time zone differences, ours aren't all that different. It's just past 8 p.m. where I live right now. I just have a bit of a tendency to have more free time in the evenings. Clovermoss (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Me too - nite, nite. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

England and the United Kingdom

I noticed that you took out my previous edits of England, the United Kingdom and reverted it back to just England.

I don't know why you did this, but England is part of the United Kingdom, and under legislation and documents, England is not known as a country  just on it's own, but as part of the United Kingdom, so I don't see why you see this as a problem. It is not vandalising the page. Vandalising is purposely ruining the page with false information and no valid citation. This was a very minor edit and I just find it   inefficient  that you took it so seriously. If you go around giving TW to a minor edit, then I'm going to have to take this up further because you can't just do this for every small detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:4445:CD8E:2E22:4E51 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC) 

Hi IP editor. You're not being rude by simply asking. But kindly link to the articles or the IP address you were using at the time, so I can take a look and explain, justify or apologise, as appropriate. I help monitor Recent Changes made to hundreds of articles a day, and can't remember each one. I do remember reverting the additions you refer to as being unnecessary over-clarification of a major country. Certainly not vandalism (my apologies if I accidentally reverted them as such), rather than as 'good faith' but unnecessary additions, and not something I'd expect someone to start pedanticly adding to across the whole encyclopedia.

I do take your point about inefficiency. I don't mind if you want to waste your time inefficiently adding United Kingdom after England. My reverts were intended to support and guide you as to what's important and what's not. I'm sorry if you took it personally - that's not my intention. I try to encourage and support all editors to edit effectively here, and as far as I can remember, I didn't think yours were that useful. Good Faith they were; vandalism they most definitely were not. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

OK IP editor(s), so I've now moved from editing on a mobile to working on a laptop, which makes it far easier to search for and address your concerns. I have now found my two edits, and I stand by them. I reject your concerns completely, as I feel I acted appropriately, and had full respect for you as an IP editor. Your edits were, put simply, not necessary. However, on investigation, it seems likely that you may be editing under a combination of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. If so, please stick to one type; doing otherwise is equivalent to sockpuppetry, which might lead to a block. I note that both my reverts clearly stated yours were 'good faith' edits which I was reverting. (see here and here). I note that an IPv4 editor (also you?) then reverted both of my reverts to the two articles without leaving any edit summary (see here and here). I have now reverted those, with a clear edit summary of why.

Look, this is all really trivial stuff - life is too short to get so wound up. Please don't make a big deal of it. I believe you were wrong to make the change, and I believe I was right to revert them. You, it appears, dont. I really am sorry if you feel aggrieved; you need to appreciate how we work here. I believe I am right to be concerned you might be intentionally changing from IPv4 to IPv6 addresses to your advantage. There's no point threatening me to "take this up further". Feel free. I'm not being belligerent. The place for you to do that is WP:ANI, and I will assist you in any concerns you may have over my editing, and be open to apologising if I have acted incorrectly. Until then, I will continue to edit in what I genuinely feel is the best interests of the user experience, and I am genuinely bothered that you have taken this so to heart. It seems so petty. I also recognise written replies never convey the nuances that a verbal reply might have done, and I'm sorry about that. The bottom line, as I see it, is that you should desist from changing "xxxx, England" to "xxxx, United Kingdom" and that you should expect to be reverted every time that you attempt to do that. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that, quite simply, is how I and, I suspect, most other editors would feel the same way.. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are really that bothered by this, then delete my talk page. I used another IP address because my phone IP had problems editing the talk page. I am shocked at your second feedback. You went from being reasonable to being downright rude. Why do you think it's wrong to put United Kingdom, when that is what England is part of? If you go to other sources of where films were made, it wouldn't say England, it would say United Kingdom. So why is it any different to where a person's birthplace is? Sorry, but you're the one being petty over this. I've never seen such controversy. Other editors I've come across have always been more reasonable and have never told me to "desist" changing one thing to another. If you think that I'm the one being heated over this, well I think anyone would if they got a warning for no reason. I realise you need to give out warnings for constant editing that has no valid citaton, but this one was just adding in part of a nation status. I personally do not see anything wrong with that and I don't see why any other editors would either. You are not being fair about this at all. I apologise if you think the "I will take this up even further" was a threat, only because if you keep giving out TW warnings to everyone over very small details, for editing twice, then you have only caused problems for yourself. I don't want to get into a heated argument over this, but unless you apologise for what you said about the "I reject your concerns" the I can't forgive you.

If I now come over as a bit blunt to you, then I am sorry. But it might possibly be because I had to spend two hours investigating and responding to your concerns, yet found no cause for them. I didn't template you with any warning messages (which is what I assumed you were upset about originally). It was a polite, factual edit summary giving an explanation of my actions in reverting your edit which I felt - and still feel - was unnecessary. Maybe you are somehow confused by what TW in an edit summary means? If you're interpreting that as some sort of warning, you are quite simply mistaken. Twinkle is just the tool some editors use when managing edits. I really don't know what more there is left for me to say on the matter. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for also if I sounded angry when I first started the discussion, mainly also due to the misunderstanding of TW. I would also like to hear why you disagree with what I put. Like I said, I really don't see why that is considered wrong because it isn't. Why do you not want me to put United Kingdom next to England, or Scotland because that's what it is and internationally that's what we're known as? Could you please give a reason why, other than it's unnecessary? They may be separate entities in their own right, but they're still known as the UK. Also I don't think most editors would care if United Kingdom was added, so chances are they would leave it, so what makes you think it would be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:DC1F:856B:FFCB:49 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I take back what I said earlier on and stand by my original comment. You just appear to be really obnoxious. Your arrogance is appalling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:FDC2:A510:E3AB:1F1E (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered assessment. Please see The pot calling the kettle black. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

New user help

Hello again, if you would care to help guide a new editor and explain referencing and more importantly COI, see User talk:MB#Confusion about edits. Or I could just give a basic answer and refer them to the Teahouse. MB 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

OK - I've taken a look. I think it best if I reply on their talk page rather than yours - I suspect they'll be less confused if I do it that way. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Help me}}

Thanks for all the info.

Frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin to implement any changes.

I'm going to step away from the page.

There is no pay involved in edit.

Was simply adding a photo.

It appears all the bio info is simply work credits to be found on IMDB or Google.

Again, I'm going to leave the page alone at this time.

If someone more qualified can make sense of it , please do.

Thanks.

Gg12lloon (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got a mail

Hello, Nick Moyes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Levent Heitmeier (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Levent Heitmeier: Hi. I got your email, but don't think I need to reply by the same means as I don't see it as a sensitive matter that needs privacy. Do you wish me to reply with feedback to you here on my talk page? Or would you prefer me not to respond at all? I'm OK either way. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Give me feedback about it either on my talk page or yours. And one more thing. I don't understand that when i click on the sandbox to open it, it directs me to edit that page and when i can access the original content only when i edit it. This is some kind of fault. From a universal servant 2409:4063:2397:BE12:0:0:27F1:28A1 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Levent Heitmeier: OK. You won't have that problem if you use the normal sandbox link right at tbe top of every page when logged in. The 'template' you added is the issue. If I click it, it takes me to the edit window of my sandbox, not yours. So simply change it to {{My sandbox|Levent Heitmeier}} and it should be fine.

Now, wrt your draft, the most obvious issue is the lack of any lead to introduce the subject in one or two simple sentences. It doesn't yet resemble an acceptable encyclopaedic article. I was left floundering amongst the mass of quoted text. It is simply isn't ok for an article as it's not relevant enough, and just too long (not to mention a possible copyright breach. What you could do is select a key element and say something like: as part of a longer statement, John Smith said of Joe Bloggs: "he's a great man"(cite sources). I did find the long version in many online blogs, but couldn't quickly trace it to an original source. It would be quickly removed were you to try. Moving forward, try drafting the article without the quotation first, having found other reliable sources, then add just a small fragment back in afterwards. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks brother! I got what you are telling and thanks for the attempt to find an original source.

I have saw the articles of many famous personalities which are really great but in most cases, I can see many other famous guys who have as much achievement as the ones but their articles have so less content and meaning that newbies start to think that the former is greater than the latter which is not so. I judge peoples by their hard work and hugely condemn if they don't get equal respect in society. That's what the issue is with Wikipedia. For example - Singers like Eddie Vedder, Bruce Dickinson, Bruce Springsteen are as much great as Elvis Presley and Freddie Mercury in terms of singing but Wikipedia article states the latter ones as one of the greatest but fails to give any such respect to the former ones which is for me and millions unacceptable because when the newer generations will see the difference in their articles, they will assume that Springsteen is not as great as Presley and Eddie is not as great as Freddie which isn't so. I'm working exactly for this cause. But many of the powerful editors here remove these kinds of claims even if I give a suitable reference. Fan following seems to affect the meaning of every single article and it's disastrous. I can work for the cause but I can't solve the problem unless other great wikipedians support me. It may sound a bit funny but the problem can not be solved unless many of us come together to do a small revolution which will eradicate the over-use of power from the Wikipedia. I wanted to talk about it to Jimbo but I don't know how. From a universal servant Levent Heitmeier (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I overwrote your signature - we had an edit conflict and I was on a mobile at the time, so it was too fiddly to resolve, so I chose to leave your Ip address in and save my reply to you. Feel free to reinsert it. From my perspective I don't give a damn whether any group of people feel one individual be they musician or statesman is "greater" than any other. Neither you nor I should be here to champion the cause of someone with fewer lines on Wikipedia than someone else. That's bias, and not OK here, but you're fine to to add reliable content to under-developed articles. I guess you're saying you see a bias against certain people. The answer is to monitor those articles and to challenge the removal of statements or sources that are deemed unreliable. But one person's WP:RS isn't always the same as another, which is why we have WP:RSN where any concerns on sources can be thrashed out if your attempts to politely discuss any concerns with another editor reach stalemate. (See the thread two up from this one by an editor concerned about my own editing). Life's too short to worry whether my musical hero, Loudon Wainwright, has more or less content than someone else here. So long as they're both deemed notable, they both deserve pages on Wikipedia. It's then up to individual editors to help those pages grow as encyclopaedia entries, but not as fan pages. I was in support of a new page on Jungkook being created few months back, but I am alarmed at some of the cr*p that his fans think they can add to his and other articles relating to BTS. Our job as editors is to act fairly in all matters, and to minimise personal bias in all that we do. If that leaves us in a minority, then it makes that task even more important. (That said, I have little personal interest in working on articles about modern day people and minor here-today-gone-tomorrow celebrities or so-called sportsmen who joined a national team for one game and weren't ever heard of again.) My own focus tends to be on the sciences and geographical information - the kind of stuff that people actually need to know about or look up and find easily. But each to their own. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I know. 117.225.31.105 (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint with the link-shortener. Greetings from Switzerland

Liberealist has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Help with my draft page (Draft:Ruslan_Troknyuk)

hello, Nick Moeys.Please help me with my draft page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruslan_Troknyuk. I don't add all info about Ruslan Troknyuk's music projects and releases, that's a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckswickas (talk • contribs)

@Duckswickas: There are many, many musicians in the world, and Wikipedia can only have articles about people who meet our WP:NOTABILITY criteria. See WP:NMUSIC to see how your draft needs to be able to meet this. At the moment in seems to be just a list of many of his music publications. These and all the unnecessary references should be removed. You need to demonstrate that the world at large has noticed and written about this man, and much less on what he has produced himself. Rely instead on proving how he meets notability criteria and not on making it a directory of his work. At present this draft seems very unlikely to be accepted. If you are Ruslan Troknyuk, or know him as a friend or colleague, you have an obvious Conflict of Interest, which you should declare on your Userpage, especially if you are him, or are being WP:PAID for your work here. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ruslan Troknyuk createa and published over 3000 tracks! He made alone more then  Elvis Presley and The Beatles made! 

Article at popular Ulrainian website Slukh dot media in Ukraine has over 129 k of views https://slukh.media/news/zippy-kid-forever/ it's main criteria

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckswickas (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 

Adoption request

Hi. I (and many other editors) have noticed some serious problems with my editing. You have probable seen me as 4thfile4thrank, before I was renamed. I have been looking for a way to increase my experience within the community. Is there any advice that I desperately need, what are my good areas and weak areas, and an I eligible for adoption? Steve M (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Steve M. Thanks for dropping by with your question, and my apologies for the long delay in replying to you. To answer your last question first, I would say "Yes", you look to be an absolutely perfect candidate for Adoption. You have made over 12,000 edits across numerous articles subjects, are clearly committed, and have tried to work behind the scenes in various areas too. To me, this is an excellent thing to have done, and the fact that you are concerned about your editing and want to improve and better understand how to do things is to be heartily welcomes. Even after 10 years here, I still want to improve on my skills, and know there are many areas where I am pretty weak. So I always tread carefully when entering new areas. Yes, I do remember seeing your earlier username, and I did sense you might have been trying a little too hard in some areas and getting into 'hot water' once or twice. You didn't supply any WP:DIFFS, but recognising your errors, learning from them, and being aware you should not try to 'run before you can walk' is really mature. I've no idea how old you are, but sometimes the over-confidence and inexperience of youth can result in maybe a few more mistakes than others might hope for, so taking your time to work in areas you are really confident in, rather than trying too hard or too quickly to gain experience in absolutely everything. Sometimes, simply stopping to consider what one is about to do is well worth it in order to save a whole load of trouble. I've sometimes drawn back from making certain edits or publishing certain comments - especially on user talk pages - when I've thought more about how my remarks or actions might be perceived by another human being.

If you want to find an adopter, I'd suggest you read through the descriptions of the many potential adopters at WP:UAA and find someone who seems to match your own interests. Drop them a line - maybe even via private email if you want to explain things you don't want to say online - and see what they say. I can't offer to do so myself as I currently have a new adoptee and am already struggling to find enough time to answer all their questions. But if you ever want to drop by and ask me the odd question here, do feel free. I might not be able to reply immediately, but I'll do what I can or direct you to the Teahouse or wherever, or maybe a WP:TPS might offer suggestion too. I do hope this reply has been of some help and encouragement to you. (You might, however, want to take off the 'semi-retired' notice from your userpage before you do approach a potential adopter.) All the very best, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Adoption Request

I just read your message in Adopt-a-user. I am also interested in History, and I am newbies to here. I also had a conflict with other user recently, so I thought it is better to start adopt-a-user program. I am looking forward to working with you. Thank you. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Would I be likely to be accepted for using AutoWikiBrowser?

Would I be likely to be accepted for using AutoWikiBrowser? I plan on using it to to fix links, cite errors, and typos throughout the site. Steve M (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

It will be ten years since 15 January 2011 when Derby Museum and Wikimedia UK agreed to collaborate and the first British Wikipedian in Residence program began.(*) Thanks to someone agreeing to "just do it". If I remember it made half a column in the Derby Telegraph but I don't think the writer understood what they were reporting. Thanks Nick. (* I notice that the French claim to have the 3rd WIR - but no! we were before their Feb 2011 date!) Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Roger, it was great to hear from you 10 years ago, just as it is today. I don't think I realised the significance back then either, but it's been a rewarding and fulfilling time ever since, which has certainly kept me busy. How are things with you both? My wife followed me by retiring last summer and was looking forward to travelling in her free time - but along came the bloody virus, so we've been focussing on sorting out the house and other things. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Bill Peascod

Hi Nick, this draft was up for G13 but a quick Google Books search indicates there may be enough sourcing out there to establish notability. Given he was a British rock climber and apparently quite well-known during his time, thought you may interested and be more familiar with finding sources. S0091 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi S0091. Wow - yes I know the name very well - he climbed with Don Whillans and is/was extremely well known in British climbing circles back in the early days of mountaineering. He put up Eagle Front in the Lake District, which I'm pretty sure I climbed many years back (which would have been at the the very top of my climbing grade). Here's Chris Bonnington and Peascod reclimbing it some 40 years later using original gear. Sadly, I'm completely snowed under in real life right now, but should it get deleted I'll definitely bring it back and work on it myself when I'm able. User:Liz did just the right thing in delaying its deletion, and the draft looks pretty good, if undersourced! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That's crazy! Thanks for sharing. Yes, I added the promising draft tag so it should hang around for at least another six months. S0091 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

RevDel Request/Suggestion

Greetings. I believe [this edit] may qualify under WP:RD4. It appears that in light of the Second impeachment of Donald Trump the pages for those GOP representatives who voted 'yea' have seen an uptick in BLP-related vandalism and might merit semi-protection until everything blows over. Thanks. Amp71 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Amp71: Thanks for the report. I saw someone else had revdelled or oversighted the comment almost immediately. I meant to acknowledge earlier, but have been rather busy IRL. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Adoption request: create and edit diverse mathematicians and women in Africa

Hello Nick Moyes,

I hope you are well. I saw your profile in adoption and thought our interests overlap. I have been a member of Wikipedia since 2015. The first article I created was The Walls Around Us. The book was assigned as a freshman read to all students at the women's college I attended. I'd seen and relied on Wikipedia pages for similarly popular books in the past. When I didn't see a page, I wondered why no one had made one. And then a bit later I realiezed that I could create one myself!

As for longevity: since 2015 I have made edits periodically. I attended an Art+Feminism in-person Edit-a-Thon. Now I'm interested in mentorship because I want to contribute more on Wikipedia, but don't know exactly how. For example, I've asked a couple times about notability and still have a hard time telling when some people are notable. I also want to improve coverage on certain topics (details below), but wouldn't know exactly how to do that. I was also interested in the "adoption" because I'd prefer communicating on Wikipedia over IRC. General support would work well for me, especially because I think I know what areas I would want to improve.

I mostly just want to write and improve English articles. I'm not interested in stuff like monitoring for vandalism or intervening in disputes. In the future I am also interested in contributing to WikiProjects, especially in gaining and sustaining new members, hosting events, and supporting and recruiting event hosts and organizational partners. You can see my to-do tracker and lists of things I want to edit on my user page.

I am particularly interested in improving the coverage of diverse mathematicians. I am also interested in improving the quality of mathematics articles, especially relating to differential equations. But as you can see on my user page, I'm also interested in editing random things like This is Paris and bicycle sharing systems.

Two things I would most like to achieve:

1. Make the article on Clarence Stephens of much greater quality and reach (good article/featured/did you know/main page/etc). He made important contributions to mathematics education, and his article doesn't communicate that like it should. It's also missing a lot of his significant and notable achievements, like he's won lots of awards and was inducted into the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History. He led the "Potsdam Miracle", where a small state college with average admissions and a standard mathematics curriculum produced the most mathematics majors in the USA, second or third only to a school orders of magnitudes larger and better funded. Stephens had a similar (though less documented) impact at the HBCU where he taught previously. He taught and inspired many students, including some who went on to themselves become some of the first African Americans to earn mathematics PhDs.
   1. Despite knowing a couple good sources, I'm not sure how I would go about organizing that information, or what it would take for the article to increase in its quality. For example, should his teaching philosophy, "the Morgan-Potsdam Model", be under its own article eventually? (For now it doesn't exist on Wikipedia at all so it's not a bridge that needs to be crossed yet). When should something go under the Potsdam's school page, or under Morgan State where he taught prior, instead of or in addition to his biography? I think his achievements and approaches should be mentioned or linked in some other mathematics articles, but not totally sure what/where/how.
   2. My current progress on this is just compiling and annotating sources on him, saved on my computer.
2. To contribute high-quality articles, especially about women in underrepresented fields, to the Women in Red Women in Africa project. Mathematics is a field where women are underrepresented, but so are fields like weightlifting and chess. I created the articles Sophie Dabo-Niang, African Women in Mathematics Association, and Oloni so far. I'm also actively working on a few others, from compiling sources to drafting the pages.
   1. When I say I want to improve quality, there are some things standing in the way. It's difficult for me to tell which of the women are really notable. It's also been hard for me to find sources for some people even though I know they're notable. For example, Rebecca Walo Omana is the first, and as of at least 2013 the only female mathematics professor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, it's been very hard to find reliable sources on her (or to tell what is considered reliable). I want to know how to write these bios as well as possible, with the available information.

Do you think helping me learn to achieve the two goals I listed (quality coverage of Clarence Stephens and quality articles for Women in Africa)? I know you listed some administrative things so I don't know how much writing or editing is something you'd be comfortable with. Is "adoption" something you would be interested in?

Best, IllQuill (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IllQuill Thank you for outlining your interests and for requesting adoption. This is more of a holding reply as I'm extremely busy in real life., at least for the for the next three to four weeks. I do already have one adoptee (who I don't feel I've devoting enough time to since Christmas!) but I'll give it some further thought, as I can see you're serious and genuinely keen; I just don't want to promise you something I can't properly deliver on. So, in the meantime, if you need immediate answers to any issue, either drop me a specific note here, or ask at the Teahouse where you're bound to get a speedy response from a fellow 'Host'. I should say that there are always times when notability is a judgement call, and the lack of online or printed WP:RS can be a real challenge - moreso in countries like the Congo where publications may be much fewer or harder to find. Obviously WP:NBIO and especially WP:NPROF are important starting points, and I would have guessed - even before checking the sources - that she would meet that criterion. Having quickly looked, I'm pretty confident it's OK for mainspace, so have approved it for you. Of course, anyone can disagree at any point on notability, even putting an article up for an WP:AFD discussion years after it was created. But that's just how things work here - by consensus. I'll endeavour to get back to you in a while with further comments. Sorry I can't say more at this point, and thanks again for your confidence in me. In haste, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes -- it's all good! And I just saw above where you said you're busy as well so sorry I didn't read that before. I definitely feel like I'm on my way to figuring things out either way IllQuill (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

KevinTheGuy

• KevinTheGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like our disruptive friend is back repeating the same problematic behavior you and I previously called them out on (diff). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

• The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
• It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

• As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
• There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[4]
• The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[5] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
• A large A/B test will start soon.[6] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[7] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Francis Thompson (film director)

Hi Nick. Could you take a look at WP:THQ#uploading an image? The image is probably OK, but it's COI stuff that might need some cleaning up. I'm sure this editor meant well and I'm not keen on simply just "erasing" all of their contribution; so, maybe there's a way to find some middle ground. Any ideas? The article went from this to this so it was quite a major expansion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to want to update that this appears to have been resolved via user talk page discussion since the editor who expanded the article pretty much self-reverted what they added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm glad it's sorted. I am afraid I was already too busy IRL at the moment to be able to do much on Wikipedia, and probably will be for the next couple of weeks. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Placing response here because it won't show on our sandbox talk page

Hello Nick, I have been trying to put this in the correct position on our sandbox talk page and I can't get it to show up correcty. I have four colons for correct positioning, I wonder if that has something to do with it? Anyway, here I won't use those, or the ping. Happy New Year, Nick, even if we are almost a full month into it, and it isn't turning out to be the great relief we hoped for after 2020. But it has potential. I hope you had a lovely visit with your daughter. I am just getting back to working in Wikipedia. I've moved links from all your helpful responses to our sandbox page proper, and have read through many of them and links from them. I've gotten several new sources, so I'll work a bit more on the Crewel (embroidery) article before putting it up for peer review, but I am sure this will be very helpful. I made the change you suggested to the lead--that was really good advice. I've read your Mont Blanc massif article and I am very, very impressed. What a standard to strive for! I do hope you will take it to acceptance as a featured article.TrudiJ (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi TrudiJ. Happy New Year to you too. No, it's not going great, is it (apart from Trump leaving office!)? The 'lovely visit with my daughter' is still ongoing, as everyone's in lockdown here and neither schools nor universities are reopening for another month or two. What a way for a student to have to approach their final two terms at Uni! I am afraid that I've become extremely busy in real life since the start of January - our tenant of 10 years has just moved out, and we need to do a house-wide redecoration job, both inside and out, before we can re-let it. So I'm out all day and totally shattered in the evening. I am aware I still haven't replied to all your questions from December, and probably won't be able to be very active again for another two or three weeks at least. I'm really sorry about that.

In the meantime, I'm a bit unclear what you meant above by 'correct position on our sandbox'. At a quick glance the layout seems OK. One tip, if you ever have problems like this, is to make and save the edit that doesn't seem to work, and then revert it immediately afterwards. Then obtain the WP:DIFF of the bad edit from the 'View History' Tab and send it to me, or whoever, to look at. (You can always indent a bullet point by putting one or more colons in front of it, and if you ever want to ping someone without using the normal 'their username/your signature/same-edit' approach which can look very messy on user pages, you can now ping anyone from within an edit summary by placing User:XXXX within double square brackets -see here.)

Hope to be more active again soon. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard-January 2021

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the January 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard. Pilot Project, trying a smaller and different style newsletter

• Here are the events of January!!

Wikipedia News

• Wikipedia is now 20 years old!! Notice a different logo?
• There is now more than 1 billion edits on Wikipedia!
• The Simple English Wikipedia now has more than 180,000 Articles! So close to 200,000!

Humor

• Did you realize that the word "Humour" has been spelt wrong? I didn't until now! ;)
• I hope you didn't edit Wikipedia straight on and Missed Christmas...

Notes

• We are trying out this pilot style newspaper, making it easier for you, and our editors to use. Please let me know what you think about this new 'style' of newspaper!
• The Wikipedia Ads section will be omitted, to make the flow of this newsletter easier. Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! Happy New Year! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• This message was sent by --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard-January 2021

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the January 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard. Pilot Project, trying a smaller and different style newsletter

• Here are the events of January!!

Wikipedia News

• Wikipedia is now 20 years old!! Notice a different logo?
• There is now more than 1 billion edits on Wikipedia!
• The Simple English Wikipedia now has more than 180,000 Articles! So close to 200,000!

Humor

• Did you realize that the word "Humour" has been spelt wrong? I didn't until now! ;)
• I hope you didn't edit Wikipedia straight on and Missed Christmas...

Notes

• We are trying out this pilot style newspaper, making it easier for you, and our editors to use. Please let me know what you think about this new 'style' of newspaper!
• The Wikipedia Ads section will be omitted, to make the flow of this newsletter easier. Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! Happy New Year! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• This message was sent by --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)