I absolutely despise talkpage templates. Please don't use them here. If you do use one, by all the gods, sign it so it archives and put it in its own section!

I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. But if I left a note on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, as I'm watching your page for a bit.

Archives

Archive 1 May 2007 to Jan 2008 Archive 2 Jan to April 2008 Archive 3 April to 15 May 2008 Archive 4 15 May to 30 June 2008 Archive 5 1 July 2008 to 26 August 2008 Archive 6 27 August 2008 to 10 October 2008 Archive 7 11 October 2008 to 13 January 2009 Archive 8 14 January 2009 to 26 February 2009 Archive 9 27 February 2009 to 9 April 2009 Archive 10 6 April 2009 to 1 June 2009 Archive 11 2 June 2009 to 25 August 2009 Archive 12 24 August 2009 to 14 November 2009 Archive 13 14 November to 8 January 2010 Archive 14 8 January 2010 to 19 February 2010 Archive 15 18 February 2010 to 22 July 2010 Archive 16 29 July 2010 to 23 October 2010 Archive 17 22 October 2010 to 22 December 2010 Archive 18 22 December 2010 to 12 March 2011 Archive 19 9 March 2011 to 18 May 2011 Archive 20 19 May 2011 to 21 July 2011 Archive 21 20 July 2011 to 18 October 2011 Archive 22 18 October 2011 to 26 December 2011 Archive 23 27 December 2011 to 27 January 2012 Archive 24 27 January 2012 to 31 March 2012 Archive 25 31 March 2012 to 5 June 2012 Archive 26 7 June 2012 to 1 September 2012 Archive 27 4 September 2012 to 29 November 2012 Archive 28 30 November 2012 to 1 February 2013 Archive 29 2 February 2013 to 15 April 2013 Archive 30 15 April 2013 to 4 June 2013 Archive 31 28 May 2013 to 2 July 2013 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

What does { { authority control} } do? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth. Since you don't like talkpage templates, and since I don't know how to place one anyway, I'll let you know without the template that you presumably have an email from me sent on May 22 or May 23. I have some concerns about your Wikipedia-related conduct in the recent AE case involving myself. I would be willing to discuss these on-wiki, but this would be at best inconvenient under the terms of the IBAN currently in effect. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email, but I do not discuss wiki matters off wiki. And, no, I think your best option is to drop the whole matter that lead to the Iban, so in the interest of helping you with that goal, I don’t think it’s in your interest to discuss. My advice is to move on, and to learn to let matters drop when discussions have reached an impasse. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, which I have taken under consideration. I have at the present time, however, concerns that I wish to raise about your Wikipedia-related conduct, and perhaps I need to bring to your attention the unanimous ArbCom decision on COMMUNICATION [1] and the further policy WP:ADMINACCT in this regard. I understand, sympathize and to a large degree concur with your attitude regarding on-wiki vs. email, but nonetheless point out that "while [administrators] are not required to enable or reply to email", "best practices are for [them] to have email enabled", thus indicating that email is officially encouraged, perhaps particularly for cases such as this one. If you do not want to use email, I will have to request a modification of the IBAN restrictions for your or my talk page. If, as you indicate, you are sincerely interested in helping me drop the matter, then I think it best that we discuss this. Thank you again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you are aware that I did not take any admin action in regards to your filing. I commented, but it was GoldenRing (talk · contribs) who imposed the IBAN. If I had taken any admin action with regards to you, then, yes, I would be willing to communicate through email. However, since I did not take any such action, the provisions you bring up don’t really apply. I suggest that you take your concerns up with GoldenRing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not sure your participation didn't constitute an action ("a thing done; an act") – see [2] ("this assuming your participation constituted an action"). The provision at WP:ADMINACCT, however, does not concern merely "administrative actions", but rather "Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions", which are to be justified when needed. Furthermore, even at COMMUNICATION [3] the expectation "to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues" is only "especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions", indicating that the expectation is not limited to actions, however defined. I am in contact with GoldenRing and aware of who did what, thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

frankly, I have not the slightest idea what you think you need to discuss with me. At this point, frankly, it’s looking like you’re doing much the same refusing to drop the stick at this talk page. People will disagree with things, and at some point the best thing to do is agree to disagree and I’m rapidly reaching that point. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stick or not, agreeing to disagree or not, the provisions are explicit and clear. If you don't know what I think I need to discuss with you, the simplest thing would be to ask. As it is, you are refusing to respond to queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and to justify them. You are failing to communicate and explain your actions. You are not constructively discussing the issues. You are not responding promptly and fully, or apparently at all, to good-faith concerns about your actions. This may be noted in addition to your AE statement itself. For the last time, I think it would be better if you and I discussed this, whether you are presently aware of what I want to discuss or not. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think it has bearing on your IBAN actually tells me quite a lot. If you disagree with my reading of the situation that lead to the IBAN, well, that was my reading of the situation. (And, yes, I read both the threads at MOS and elsewhere before commenting). The thing to do when you have an IBAN is to walk away from the situation and drop it. Don’t think about that other editor. Don’t try to discuss with third parties the situation that led to the IBAN or anything peripheral to the situation. I’m trying to help you here by not perpetuating the situation that got both of you into trouble. Let it go. That’s my sincere advice to you...it’s not worth the effort. If you think my advice isn’t good, you’re free to do whatever, but I can guarantee that most editors are going to see this discussion as a refusal to let things go, which is what got you into this trouble. I would love it if you applied your obvious skills to helping improve the encyclopedia instead of worrying about other editors conduct. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your advice. Unfortunately it doesn't respond to my concerns, and "I read both the threads at MOS and elsewhere before commenting" (which nobody ever doubted) does not – at least to my mind – constitute an adequate discussion of your conduct and of the outstanding issues. I have nothing to add to what I wrote before, other than that I will likely complain about your conduct, whether informally to GoldenRing or otherwise. Telling me what you think I should do does not fulfill the WP directives in regard to communication and accountability. This is all I have to say for now, so do not expect a further reply from me unless you are willing to discuss the matter seriously and with a due measure of respect. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,914		Unplanned (talk)	Add sources
313		The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (talk)	Add sources
3,147		Sparta (talk)	Add sources
571		Bombay Presidency (talk)	Add sources
56		Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (talk)	Add sources
340		The Mountain (talk)	Add sources
287		Niira Radia (talk)	Cleanup
15		Rouen Business School (talk)	Cleanup
49		Fathi Shaqaqi (talk)	Cleanup
1,772		Reign of Terror (talk)	Expand
48		Rouen Castle (talk)	Expand
24		Trial of Radovan Karadžić (talk)	Expand
28		Holocaust studies (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8,129		French Revolution (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
194		Bielski partisans (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
374		Chemical weapon (talk)	Merge
54		Chemical weapon proliferation (talk)	Merge
50		Catholic Church and ecumenism (talk)	Merge
3		Blue Lodges (talk)	Wikify
11		Ruth Scurr (talk)	Wikify
78		Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (talk)	Wikify
4		Đinh Xuân Quảng (talk)	Orphan
46		A.W. Peet (talk)	Orphan
3		Wijaya Putra University (talk)	Orphan
8		Thirunelveli, Sri Lanka (talk)	Stub
6		Pamalayu (talk)	Stub
8		Reginald Otto (talk)	Stub
11		Nguyễn Văn Xuân (talk)	Stub
177		Trevor Stines (talk)	Stub
4		Ban Advocates (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth - you are a middle ground here. Could you please look into examples 1-6, by Poeticbent/sock, in the ARC case:

1. Loosmark sock (+Poeticbent), IcewhizFix - Describing a Polish pogrom against Jews,^[1][2] as Jewish oppression of Poles followed by Germans killing Jews - see AE determining this was a hoax. Note VM loudly asserted restoring this was non-actionable. Also see: Dr. Morris S. Whitcup on Wikipedia's articles
2. Poeticbent+Loosmark sock, IceWhizFix - Local poles burn 600-2000 Jews alive in barn,^[1][3] described as Jewish oppression of Poles followed by Germans killing Jews.
3. Poeticbent,Loosmark sock,Poeticbent,IceWhizFix: related to 1+2, obfuscation of local killings+explusion+Jedwabne.^[1][4]
4. Poeticbent,IceWhizFix - extermination camp for Jews,^[5] described as "intended to kill Jews and Poles from all nearby towns and villages" (Polish citation in article: "Jews".^[6])
5. PoeticbentBiałystok,PoeticbentHistoryOfTheJews,PoeticbentCommons - IceWhizFixBiałystok,IceWhizFixHistoryOfTheJews,IceWhizFixCommons - "Jewish welcoming banner" in 1939 image captions (extended discussion, caption offwiki) - actually election notice to the People's Council of Western Belarus in 1941
6. Loosmark sock,IceWhizFix - describes the "Polish operation" (one of multiple NKVD national sweeps) as "the genocide of Poles in the Soviet Union", misstating named historians^[7] and using a dubious source. Contrast academic sources:^[8][9][10].

In particular 1-5. I can e-mail you the refs that are not online. For all the acrimony in the topic area - much of the content that is being "fought over" has been generated by Poeticbent/Loosmark. It shouldn't be hard for you to verify here (both off my references, and off others - e.g. Intimate Violence: Anti-Jewish Pogroms on the Eve of the Holocaust (Kopstein & Wittenberg) is recent work here, and older works on the towns in Łomża County with pogroms before/after Jedwabne are widely available (following Gross(2000) - this is well written (and was covered previously - e.g. Radziłów was better known than Jedwabne prior to Gross)). For all the discussion here on conduct, what really matters in content (in particular when it rises to this level). Knee-jerk responses in ANI (which is not suited for a topic that requires more than 2-3 of an editor's attention span to evaluated) are just going to be one big free for all. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wasn't kidding when I said I am busy. We are moving from Central Illinois to Central Wisconsin - with a library of over 10,000 books, a large amount of stuff we sell online, a number of hobbies, plus 8 cats, a dog, and 7 horses and all the equipment that THOSE take. And we're moving ourselves, not hiring it done. And I've still got work for various places that I do freelance. I really really don't have the time to dig into things quickly. Go ahead and send the pdfs, but I cannot promise anything quickly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I'm terrified at my move at the end of the year, and it isn't nearly as far nor close to as much kit - and I'll probably have help. I guess you can literally mean it when you say it rains cats and dogs (and horses). Bounced the mail over. I didn't send the stuff that is available online freely (hyperlinked in the refs) or the USHMM encyclopedia that I assume you have (and is too big for e-mail, I think). Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! Best of luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

You recently offered a statement in 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/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of creation of content. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Ealdgyth for editor of the week. They are a content creator par excellence, with 62 FAs and 109 GAs to their name. And 100 DYKs, 2 FLs, a FT and more Four and Million Awards than I could count. And has reviewed 220 GANs. They have made over 125,000 edits. They are an administrator. They are very active on WikiProject Good articles - maintaining the mechanism which allows the GAN process to work.

"Wow!" you say, and well you might. But that is all by the bye. The actual reason I think they are worthy of being editor of the week is the work they do to ensure that a worthy and appropriate Featured Article of the Day (TFA) appears each and every day on the main page. The main page is Wikipedia's shop window, and the first thing a browser sees is the TFA. Placed there by Ealdgyth. They sort out a balanced set of articles, bearing in mind special dates (1 April, 25 December) and requests for articles to appear on certain dates (subject's birthdays etc). They check them for quality. They physically fit them into the schedule. They check the blurb (the bit that actually appears on the front page) for quality and length. They deal with queries. Two to three full days of work each month. Knowing that 20 million people will be viewing any error. And all of this for literally no thanks at all. Possibly the most under-rated editor on Wikipedia. This nomination was seconded by 7&6=thirteen with the comment, "Good work consistently done without fanfare" and by User:Adityavagarwal who praised Ealdgyth as "One of the most prolific editor on Wikipedia!" You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((User:UBX/EoTWBox))

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]