News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Share your experience in this survey
Hi SlimVirgin/October 2019,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Slim,
I've been thinking to contact you about the Epstein BLP. I've pinged you to the RS/N in case you can help suss out whether the NYT can be used to portray Epstein's first and most-known accuser, Virginia Guiffre, as someone who makes inaccurate statements. The NYT makes a statement and links to a 2,000 page document, which luckily Newslinger dug through to find the source material. I would love your input into whether WP's interpretation of NYT's summary of that material is accurate. With many thanks, petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, I'm not sure if you carefully read all that Newslinger has written, but one line I feel is important. I've started a thread at his page, and thought since my pings don't work, I'd just add a link here. The WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline is apparently in need of clarification. If all editors understood it the way it was meant to be, we would never have had the issue at the Epstein article to begin with. petrarchan47คุก 19:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! At Talk:Robert Peel (Christian Science) you had asked the COI editor some questions regarding their publishing sequence. Those questions have now been answered, and I wanted to check with you to see if you had read them and if there was anything else you wanted to add to the discussion before I closed the request. Thank you in advance for any time you can spare on this. Warm regards, Spintendo 06:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi SV, I'm helping out on an article on Abū_al-Faraj_al-Iṣfahānī with quite complex references and footnotes. I think that separate 'references' and 'works cited' (e.g. in the style of this article) would work better for it but I'm not familiar with how to implement it (I usually stick to science articles where just referencing with cite_journal is pretty simple). Given your experience with articles using that sort of referencing, would you be able to drop by and lend a hand? Thanks in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
((sfn))
template is actually doing! I guess it's a fancier way of making a linked version of <ref>McPherson 1990, p. 1.</ref>. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I have a pretty random question. I noticed that you recently removed a CliffsNotes source from the Night as an unreliable source. It led me to wonder if CliffNotes or SparkNotes are considered unreliable sources for Wikipedia? Apologies if this has already been covered on RSN. I admit that I have not checked the noticeboard's archives to see if a consensus was reached on this matter; I vaguely remember asking about this in the forum a while back, but I do not think it generated much conversation. Is it a case where these "notes" are considered unreliable in general or are they discouraged because as I would imagine, the same (or similar) information could be found and sourced to higher-quality literary analysis articles? I was just curious because I do not want to accidentally introduce bad sources if I ever work on a literature-related article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Euf, not my finest edits. I think I'll leave it to ye guys to build up the page, and if ye need review at any stage, ping for talk page suggestion. Its a very worthy project, and I intended only to offer support Ceoil (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
to consider Gruban's email. I think it would be very good if we were to work together on this. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Uploaded at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dora_Ohlfsen-Bagge --valereee (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Houthi movement. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)