Jump to content

User talk:The ed17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skiff (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 31 December 2016 (→‎South American dreadnought race - Translation in French). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The Signpost
22 July 2024
The Bugle
Issue 219, July 2024
 

Published by the Military history WikiProject

Military history WikiProject
Articles for review
Featured Article candidates
Jozo Tomasevich • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Brighton hotel bombing
Featured Article Review Candidates
Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages
Featured List Candidates
List of Eureka Stockade defenders
A-Class Review (Criteria/FAQ)
Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Lockheed YF-22
Good Article Nominations
Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • The Motherland Calls • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023–2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza • Amazon-class frigate (1795) • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Udagbedo • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Black Hills National Cemetery • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement
Good Article Reassessments
Joe Rice • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City
Peer Review
Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War
See the full list of open tasks



User talk:Engleham

I posted a non-template 3RR warning on that page with regard to Charles Higham (biographer), and note you had been involved with that editor in the recent past. Collect (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'll let another admin sort that out—I don't have enough time to take an in-depth look into the situation right now. Is Engleham being incredibly uncivil again too? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Persistent" in his insistence on edits which he never got a consensus for in the past. Sigh. Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe AN? Sorry I can't help more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The (fitb) is accusing me of heinous crimes against Wikipedia in many places and edit warring to boot [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] sticking to the last two days. Another dozen or more in the prior single day. You warned him in the past - if you do not view this as a violation of what you said he should not do, I will be damned if I bring this to AN/I. In fact, I suggest that his affronts, including his charge that I am anti-gay, have Alzheimers, and am an affront to human existence at all represent substantial evidence that he is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia at all.

your very own endlessly tedious soapbox lecturings on bias. (But as everyone who has ever crossed you knows all too well, such injunctions don't apply to you -- especially if you think you can get a rise out of the other party, puerile unhelpful rubbish that some other editor will eventually delete anyway - and not just your nemesis User:Dr. Blofeld., Your predicable baiting bullshit can rot by itself, Rosenfield's biography of Hepburn never appeared. Why? Because he suicided the same month as he wrote the review slagging Higham, What?! You left out the part about the Gay Illuminati Conspiracy., I've removed all the shrill adolescent bolding. Bad form, but it was making the RfC impossible to read, not just your own rants - sorry, opinion, How about: instead of misrepresenting due process as edit warring, you might review some of your own contributions in that regard, beginning here: Talk:Harold_Holt As someone in our office laughingly commented recently while scrolling through a certain history: "There's nothing wrong with being an old steamer. But they need to read what they write!" , the bolding is merely to demonstrate that I too can do it, like the hysterics who object to any mention of Cooper having a homosexual best friend.) and on and on and on. Carthago delenda est. Collect (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Collect, sorry that I missed this—I've been offline. I would really advise you to go to AN, as I'm not going to have the time to delve into this situation. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dramaboards are a pain for a person who has at least eight people tracking my every edit (including IPs who mysteriously appear seeking my exit from Wikipedia). As a result, I have sworn off them in the belief that someone actually will give a damn (GWTW reference). The number of POV pushers with "strong alliances" (minced oath under my breath) is vast, and the number of people who actually think policies should be followed is far too small. Collect (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do empathize with that—I've had one person doing something similar recently. But again, I really just don't have the time to examine this. I'm sorry. Another admin? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

signpost

hi, was looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Obituary you might be interested in adding:

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, I've added the article contributing plans. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...
precision
... you were recipient
no. 206 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

I like your obituary for Kevin. I wrote A Requiem in Our Time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Pennsylvania-class battleship! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin was not French, IP rant

Since you were somewhat involved with this "person" back in November 2015,[15] I thought I should notify you of that particular "person's" return.

I do not believe that we need this kind of racist garbage on Wikipedia.

@Kansas Bear: looks like an IP has removed the comment, rightfully in my opinion (despite the reverts). Will try to keep an eye on it, but I won't be on much in the next 24. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Story that might be of interest

I imagine that you probably have known about this for ages, but in case not... It looks like an interesting project. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am and already passed it onto my classmates. :-) A professor here works at the Coastal Studies Institute, and I believe several students have as well (although I'm not sure if they're involved with this). Thanks for sending it to me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case opened

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/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<<

July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.

August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Please see the large instructions at the toon of the page"If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already have one). Do not edit anyone else's section." (emphasis present in the original) – Gavin (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm really not worried about wikilawyering bullet point two. I believe that Andrew will agree that it's a beneficial change, but if not, it'll take him about .5 seconds to remove. Apologies for editing your section, though. That was daft. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's nowt to do with wikilawyering: it has never been acceptable to add one's thoughts to other people's TP comments, and doubly so at ArbCom. As well as the quoted wording above, the instructions also reiterate that"You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned." If Andrew wants to subsequently add the comment, that is entirely up to him, but you cannot and must not change his statement. - Gavin (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Engleham

Just a quick head's up, I have just blocked this user for a month. You placed a similar block a few months back, suggesting the next one should be indefinite. I have stopped short of that for now, as I am cautiously optimistic that a month off will allow everybody else to get back to work, but have emphasised future blocks may well be indefinite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: That seems ... rather short, given my previous month-long block not even four months ago (where's the escalation?) and other blocks in the past (as I said at the time: "Engleham's block log has three blocks for personal attacks, one for violating BLP, two for both at the same time, and one for socking to boot (another was overturned). Then this one today. Have we given [Engleham] too much rope?"). There was also a developing consensus on ANI in favor of a community ban. Perhaps you closed the discussion a bit early? Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on it. Engleham is a productive editor with a barbed sense of humour that gets him into trouble when other people don't share it. (cf: The Troggs Tapes). The ANI thread was trending in only one direction towards a full ban or indefinite block, and the conversation was approaching (but had not quite reached) a bloodbath - at which point I felt another admin would have placed such a sanction. Nipping it in the bud this way stops the immediate disruption and gets editors back to whatever they were doing, and it also provides Engleham with a route back into editing Wikipedia. The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption, so we just have to pick whatever is the least worst option at any time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's two problems with that approach. One, you're cutting the community out of the process. One could make a stronger argument here, but I don't want to unjustly ascribe motives to you; it suffices to say that we operate this site based on consensus, and you've deliberately circumvented that.
Two, while you're very right to say that "The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption," you've unfortunately chosen to invoke the Malleus defense in response. In my personal opinion, that's an argument that should be immediately disqualified whenever it invariably pops up. No editor with an extensively invective and uncivil editing history should be allowed to continue using language that actively drives away other editors. It simply does not matter how positive their mainspace and content contributions are. Those are easy to count; the amount of edits lost from people who leave the site or decide to edit less aren't. That's one reason why there's no special provision for "but they've made so many other good edits" in WP:CIVIL. (Would you say that you wouldn't have blocked an editor making similar comments if they had only made a thousand edits?)
And just in case it isn't clear, all comments here are said in good faith and cheer. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think things are more complicated than that. I can certainly imagine somebody kicking off if I closed the ANI thread as "no action". Cary Grant's article has been put through the wringer more than a few times, and a month's block helps get some stability on it. Beyond that, I think Engleham admitted himself he gets on better writing obscure topics and things only go pear-shaped when he works on things of interest to multiple editors. He also admits to liking Bill Hicks, which means I don't think he is deliberately and purposely setting out to offend. He might exhaust Collect's patience, but I can't see him quitting Wikipedia over it. Anyway, bottom line is Engleham is blocked, and if we're having a near identical discussion on ANI in late October, feel free to serve seafood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, The ed17. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on declaring WP:INVOLVED

The ed17, what would be the best way to have an administrator declared as WP:INVOLVED when it comes to administrative actions concerning me? In the case I am speaking of, I have had a tempestuous history with the administrator for sometime and have made it clear more than once that I do not think that this administrator should act in an administrative capacity regarding me. Despite this, the administrator continues to do so. And, yes, I have examples of our tempestuous history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She means me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. I love how you comment now, but ignore me for most of the day. WP:INVOLVED clearly states, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." That fits us to a T. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been "ignoring" you because anything that I am permitted to tell you at this point would only inflame matters. If I thought I could say something that would help you calm down, I would. INVOLVED has to do with content, not with my actions as an administrator. I should also say that although you're angry with me at the moment, there have been other times when you were quite pleased with my decisions. Don't ask me for diffs; I don't keep a catalog of such events, good or bad. I'm a functionary. I have certain very clear responsibilities. One is not to breach the privacy policy, and of course I won't do that to satisfy your or anyone else's needs. You should learn to trust me more. You don't have to like me or agree with me, but at least trust me. I actually trust you. I think you're bright, often incisive, and honest. You do get a little carried away at times, but that's part of your temperament and isn't going to change. Even that has its appealing aspects. Right at the moment it's a bit annoying. :-) Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, it would have been helpful for you to identify the drive-by socks (even in the block log), but you did not. How are you not permitted to reveal who was operating those accounts? Those accounts are not IPs. Checkusers have openly revealed such information to me before. Identifying drive-by socks on a matter such as this is important, especially considering that Tisane does drive-by socking to my talk page. This case was important for a number of reasons, including as far as perception by outsiders go. You stated that "INVOLVED has to do with content, not with my actions as an administrator." That is not necessarily true. As this case shows, a number of editors felt that administrator was WP:INVOLVED because of the way he had interacted with me in the past. None of those interactions were a matter of him disagreeing with me over article content. The way that an administrator acts with an editor matters. I've been clear that some of my interactions with you leave much to be desired, so much so that I am not comfortable with you making administrative decisions regarding me. You even questioned whether or not you are involved. I am not angry with you; I am annoyed that you did not seem to give my concerns about that editor being a sock much credence and that you took the matter into your own hands and closed the case. Your close gives the impression that I am wrong, but there is a chance that I am not wrong. You didn't even sound entirely convinced that the editor is who he says he is. I feel that you should trust me more; you feel that I should trust you more. We are at an impasse. I will try to be more open-minded about you in the future, but it is not easy. I can control my temperament fairly well, actually, but I choose not to for a number of cases; this was especially true for the past three years where I needed to be stern and cold with problematic editors. I would clearly think: "Should I come across as a hothead? Or should I be very polite?" You know what I chose in some of those cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that stated, thank you for the above reply, Bbb23. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Ed, look what we're doing to his Talk page. He's probably happy he doesn't have to say anything. :-) Some things I'm not permitted to tell you; other things I'm uncomfortable telling anyone. The drive-by. If that account had been brought to SPI along with evidence, I would have made a public finding, but it didn't. What I found was ambivalent. I was satisfied the account should be blocked, but I couldn't conclusively name the master, which in this instance is why I didn't tag the account (other times I don't tag for other reasons - other CUs often do the same thing, btw). My belief is the drive-by was possibly Tisane, but there were anomalies in the technical data. Hope that helps a bit. I also blocked the one that posted to your Talk page. There's a better possibility that the second editor (potato chips or whatever the hell the username was) is related to the first. Take that for what it's worth. As for the crux of the matter, I am convinced that they are who they say they are. Sorry if I gave a different impression. Anyway, I'm glad that we're having this conversation. It's probably my fault for hoping it would go away.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the socks were likely Tisane, but this sock signed his post the way that Tisane usually does, and this sock signed his post like Markshale signs posts (with the two dashes in the front), which could be argued as a deflection on Tisane's part. For example, if Markshale is not Tisane (which I'm not convinced is the case), the two dashes with that post could have been Tisane's way of trying to make it appear that he is Markshale and that he has prevailed. The entire post was a victory dance; so is this latest link that Tisane posted to boywiki. Yes, that editor is Tisane. The boychat response is very much similar to what he emailed me before, except this time the text is explicit about a pro-child sexual abuse stance. Someone suggested that I contact Fluffernutter and/or GorillaWarfare about the boywiki content because they might be able to do something about it per WP:Oversight and/or track its editors in a way that will link them here. But boywiki is not part of Wikipedia, and I've gotten used to my "notoriety" among child sexual abusers and pedophiles, who watched this latest sockpuppet case of mine like they were watching an illegal download. I've gotten used to their disturbing posts and the way they try to undermine me here at Wikipedia. So they can mock me without me batting an eye. I did not even know about the "Super secret special admirer" matter seen at boywiki until a few days ago. I check in on the site occasionally, but have done so more recently the past few days since I knew that the latest posts there were connected to this sock case.
The main issue for me with your close is that I think you rely too heavily on CU data, which I suppose is to be expected since you are a CheckUser. Over the years, I conversed with CheckUsers who made it clear that the tool is not pixie dust and can be circumvented in a number of ways. Furthermore, CheckUsers do not always come to the same conclusion, as I demonstrated on your talk page (with the initial link above). If we look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive, what I now cite as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on the CheckUser data, we see that one CheckUser stated "Possible" and the other stated "Unrelated technically." They were wrong not to block the account. Had I not taken matters into my own hands and listed behavioral evidence, the editor who started that sockpuppet case (Betty Logan) would still be considered incorrect, despite the fact that common sense should tell a person viewing the initial case that she was right all along. Yes, I don't understand how the CheckUser tool works, but I don't think that I need to. Your close has not only given the impression that Markshale is innocent, but that the Tisane editing pattern I noted cannot be relied upon, or at least not consistently relied upon, despite the fact that it has worked without fail to identify Tisane in the past. It still remains that those edit summaries are not automated and that it's unlikely that someone other than Tisane would consistently edit like that. I cannot get past the behavioral evidence; you cannot get past the CU data and wanted me to simply stop discussing the matter because you believe you are right. So, yeah, we're at an impasse. I wish that you and/or Ivanvector would bring in second and third CheckUser opinions on this matter, for all the reasons I've stated. I pinged others in the SPI, but there were no takers. Maybe Fluffernutter and GorillaWarfare would be open to looking this case over? Maybe you wouldn't mind sharing what you know with them? You seem to mean well, but I can't get over the unease I feel about this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting, since I've been pinged. Child protection concerns should follow the advice at Wikipedia:Child protection. If what you're looking for here is some input on a checkuser case, I'm probably not the one to ask—though I hold the checkuser right, it's by dint of being an arbitrator and not because I possess any notable skill in identifying socks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting, GorillaWarfare. I'm aware of the WP:Child protection policy, but I don't see any child protection action to take in this case. It doesn't seem like Wikipedia or the WP:WMF could do anything about the other wiki. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any child protection concerns, I would send them to the WMF so that they can be the ones to decide if there is action to take. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So. Alright, then. First, on where we started here. Bbb, usually if you have to ask if you're involved, you're involved. ;-) But really, I see the points you're raising in that post and don't want to take a side. I would leave it to others to take action regarding Flyer (if any needs to be taken); it'll be less drama for everyone.
Second, I can't really comment on everything else, not being a functionary or familiar with the case. I do agree with GW that it's better to pass on everything to the WMF so they have all of the evidence when deciding whether to take action. (obligatory disclaimer: while I work with the WMF, this comment is made only in a volunteer capacity, and I have no role—formal or otherwise—with the Support and Safety team). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, that comment on Drmies's Talk page, a forum where all sorts of things are said with varying degrees of seriousness, was more me musing about INVOLVED qua policy than my questioning whether I was involved. Flyer22 can cling to the idea that I can't act at SPI when she is a "party" but it won't fly (da-da-da-boom).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I don't see why (absent a good reason) you'd continue to act in an administrator capacity with a long-standing editor who has explicitly requested you not to? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how many times users tell me I can't be impartial because of my past administrative actions against them? As for Flyer22, I barely have anything to do with her except at SPI. There are other users, not just Flyer22, who think I can't act at SPI because I've disagreed with them on past cases. SPI has a limited team and an even more limited number of CUs who patrol SPI. Any user, Flyer22 included, can approach another CU and ask if they'll intervene. I believe she did so in this instance (Alison). For the most part, CUs won't do that. Usually, another CU gets involved only if a CU asks for a second opinion. Anyway, I'm tired of talking about this. It's one thing to defend myself in something questionable, but this isn't one of those kinds of cases. You can feel free to disagree with me; that's your prerogative, but circular discussions, which are all too common at Wikipedia, are not the way I want to spend the too much time I already spend here. End of pout.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks, Ed. It's clear Bbb23 believes that the notion that he can't act at SPI when I am a 'party' is something that 'won't fly,' while I believe that he is underestimating not only the evidence I have indicating that he, in fact, probably should not be acting in an administrative capacity regarding me, but also my ability to make a strong case against someone. After all, if he had not swooped in and saved Markshale, Markshale would be indefinitely blocked right now. The behavioral evidence was obviously strong, which is why he warned other administrators not to block Markshale regardless of how compelling they found the evidence. That said, after looking at Markshale's master account (no, Bbb23 didn't reveal it to me; nor did any other CheckUser), I believe that Bbb23 acted correctly in this case. I had neglected that there is one editor who edits like Tisane (the patterns, not just one or two patterns), despite the fact that I've interacted with this editor a number of times over the years. I didn't interact with him enough to memorize his editing style, obviously. I'm not sure why Markshale made it seem like we've interacted occasionally or that he might have interacted with me. There is no 'might have.' I will apologize on his user talk page. I will not reveal his main account, but it was easy to locate once looking for the Tisane pattern.
I will always feel that Bbb23 relies too heavily on the CheckUser tool. He does not give enough weight to behavioral evidence, which is clear by his initial response in the aforementioned case, when I noted that I wanted the case looked into further. He was ready for the case to close from the beginning, despite the fact that an 'unrelated' result does not necessarily equate to 'innocent'...as I've already shown above with a prime example of CheckUsers disregarding sound behavioral evidence in favor of CheckUser data (which got the matter wrong). The CheckUser tool is obviously flawed. 'Another CU get[ting] involved only if a CU asks for a second opinion'" is a crap way to go, given the examples I pointed to.
Let's face it: Some CUs simply don't like what they consider to be sockhunters or rogue sockcatchers. They want the sockcases to go through official 'trials,' and view those who don't always use the official process as disruptive and/or believe that they see themselves as being on an administrative level. To them, we are like bountyhunters working outside the law, and we must be reigned in, taught a lesson, despite the fact that we've repeatedly uncovered the worst of socks and some pretty vile socks at that. Sorry, but the only lesson I've learned from my years of catching socks is that behavioral evidence is usually everything and 'coincidences' are to be taken with a grain of salt. In most cases (and I've noted this before on my user page), I didn't really look for socks; it's usually rather that they stupidly continued to circle my orbit, daring me, as if I wouldn't recognize them. In some cases, I ignore them. I am ignoring Cali11298 these days, for example. And, for the most part, I ignore Cebr1979, who couldn't hide his writing style if his life depended on it, including his tendency to sign his username right up against his posts (meaning with no space in between). But it doesn't mean that I don't know who they are. I never thought that this IP was Markshale. I know who that IP is, and I was clear about that. I have a few persistent stalkers and I recognize them fairly easily, especially the ones with less-than-typical signature styles.
In any case, I am currently not focused on these type of things. Thanks for hearing me out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2016



Headlines



Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Editing News #3—2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with options for editing the table structure

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes

  • You can now set text as small or big.[16]
  • Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[17] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[18]
  • Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[19]
  • At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[20]
  • The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[21] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
  • Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[22]

Future changes

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/N discussion of the username "Emir of Wikipedia"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. —Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania-class battleship for TFA on December 7

I added Pennsylvania-class battleship to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for December 7, the 75th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Halgin (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

  • New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
  • New Library Card Platform and Conference news
  • Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter



19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
  • Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
  • Featured List – England Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
  • Featured Portal – Yakutsk SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
  • Featured Topic – Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
  • Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
  • Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
  • In The News – India Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and New York City Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
  • Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !votes on RfA's

While I appreciate your intent in striking a !vote clearly based on a false premise, it is not the job of editors who are not bureaucrats to determine which !votes should be considered. A properly cast !vote should only be struck by the editor to cast it; however, any editor is allowed to remove a !vote cast by an ineligible editor. I have reverted your strike, and the 'crats can properly weigh the !vote for themselves. Happy editing! — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie's age

Are you going to worm and squirm some more just to keep Rosie's age out of her BLP? Please do not do that. If you can find a a more terse and elegant way to convey the same info, then feel free. Otherwise, hands off or I might ask a friend to find her exact DOB from WP:RS and maybe rather a bit more. Do not tempt me do that sir. Please. Thank you.--208.54.32.178 (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source provided before did not list her date/year of birth. What does "worm and squirm" mean? Why are you issuing threats? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM nomination deadline

Hi Ed-- cutoff for noms is tomorrow, not today. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi The ed17.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Revolt of the Lash

On 19 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Lash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revolt of the Lash. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Revolt of the Lash), 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania-class battleship for TFA

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The ed17. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Lash

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Revolt of the Lash you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your nomination. It was a nice surprise on the evening when Santa Claus places gifts into our shoes here in Hungary. :) Borsoka (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: You very much deserve it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!

September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).

October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.

Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2016



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

  • First place – $200
  • Second & Third place – $50 each
  • Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for MilHist newcommer

I'm very honoured by your nomination. Thank you Robert Brukner (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Best of luck! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia!

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ealdgyth. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eretria (Shannara)

Now that there's some notability, I've been working on an article for this character. I notice that you also created one a long time ago, so I thought I'd let you know that it's back. -- James26 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a lifetime ago. Nice work! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@James26: Do note that there was once a Template:The Sword of Shannara that I can restore if you create several of these articles, assuming there's enough refs for them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment! I'm only familiar with Elfstones, so I probably won't be creating articles for characters from Sword. -- James26 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning

On 21 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am led to understand

That you are of the opinion that filmographies do not need to be sourced. As an academic concerned with rampant plagiarism at wikipedia, and the practical impossibility that tracing sources via wikilink places on student and other readers (as well as the explicit statements in WP:VER that wikilinks do not satisfy the requirement for sources)—all this makes incomprehensible an opinion that such blocks of non-"sky is blue" purported factual material need not be sourced. By any widely accepted standard (for instance this), this removes all film and other arts related articles with such lists as being anything other than IMDB-copied or -comparable untrustworthy sources of content (and so off of any reading lists we might offer). This is all the more the case, since the vast majority of high traffic articles are BLP-focused. Reply here with the argument to the contrary? Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2016 San Pablito Market fireworks explosion

On 22 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 San Pablito Market fireworks explosion, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
The ed17!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Montanabw. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2017 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Modernist. Same to you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Lash

The article Revolt of the Lash you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Revolt of the Lash for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and sorry for the delays - your response coincided with a crazy busy period at work, and I must have been too zonked to have seen it when I got home. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all—I had honestly forgotten about it too, and you may have never seen it because I messed up the ping. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2017! Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same to you, Ruhrfisch. Always happy to see your name pop up on my watchlist from time to time. :-) Hope life is treating you well! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Same to you, Bzuk! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alc. poisoning

Another apparent methanol poisoning – 32 dead. Sca (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. 'Tis the season, apparently. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

South American dreadnought race - Translation in French

Hello The ed17,

No, the only people to thanks is you, because you have made most of the work. Unfortunatly, in the French article there are a lot of red links, that is why I can not propose it to a label at the moment. Anyway, I have discovered on your page two gold mines (first one and the second one which include articles about French battleships that we do not have). I am going to finish a translation about a broken dam in America and I think I will have a look to Argentine–Chilean naval arms race. I wish you a happy new year. Skiff (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&oldid=757558487"