User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2015 ← Archive 2018 Archive 2019 Archive 2020

Hi, just wondered if you could have a gander at Timeline of the 21st century#2019

I may have overdone it a bit and was wondering if anything could or should be trimmed. :) Thanks Serendipodous 03:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

It's here. In it, it says: "Decades, however, are commonly categorized based on the year numbers. For example, we say “the eighties” instead of “the 199th decade.” Similarly, the upcoming decade is technically the 203rd decade, but we call it “the twenties.” According to this common definition, decades generally encompass the time span from years ending with 0 to years ending with 9, such as 2020 – 2029.". What do you think? Should we add this? WildEric19 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WildEric19, I have no idea whether timeanddate.com is a WP:RS. More research is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Decade: ordinal vs. cardinal

I think it would be good to leave the mention of the ordinal decade that you removed from the 2020s article. The Decade article explains the ordinal usage and could be the reference. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lsloan, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 new decade

Hey Mate,

I wondered why you are adamant that the New decade issue should be removed. Is it that you don't find it relevant to the 2020 page, or that the sources need to be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.28.200 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's because there is no credible issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The general rule we've established on List of stories set in a future now past is that if a date is not specifically stated, it should be assumed to occur on any date within the year

Yes there are a few that are specifically dated, but they are few and far between. Serendipodous 01:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Serendipodous, Well, some of the movies / books / games represent a time-span exceeding 4 days, so they couldn't be entirely done yet. The original Blade Runner was clearly set in October 2019, so it stayed in 21st century in fiction until October or November. Furthermore, we still have the 20XX listings, which, under that argument, should already be removed to list of stories set in a future now past. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Well there needs to be some kind of rule to prevent willy nilly additions. Are you saying that, in future, we should wait until the end of the year? Serendipodous 20:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Serendipodous, My understanding, back when fictions were listed in individual year articles, that a year n object (film, TV program, manga, stained glass window, tatoo, ...) set in year n or year n+1 would not be included as "in fiction" in the year it was set, but others were listed. Perhaps we do need to wait till the end of the year, but I have no objection to double-listing in "in fiction" and "in a future now past" during the period when we cannot tell, with proper invisible comments.
I've only been actively monitoring 21st century in fiction for a few months now, when certain IPs have been adding future sports results to the article, so I don't know what happened at the end of 2019. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I'm fine with double listing for now. Serendipodous 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Importance tags

What are the requirements of notability to be on the 1991 year page. I believe that these are pretty notable people. just because their pages aren't to the best of conditions doesn't mean it's not a notable person. I could personally improve their pages. these importance tags are just labeling them to be removed. what about Hailu Yimenu's page? the page has barely any citation and no biography on the person but you still include them on the death list. you are sending mixed signals. From SomeBodyAnyBody05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk • contribs) 08:23, January 8, 2020 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05, We (Wikipedians) are still trying to keep year pages to be of manageable, although we're obviously failing with 2020, as we already have at least one event for each day of the year (except possibly today). We used to have acting guidelines, but they were only established by consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, and were never ratified by the community.
The only remaining guideline is that the person (not just his death, for death listings) must be internationally significant. Leaders of a country's government or legislature are considered significant unless they didn't actually do anything. (An example of the latter is an acting president of a country whose only official action was to turn power over to his elected successor.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Also how was my first edit inappropriate? I responded with my opinion on the other user's comments? in a discussion page i express personal views and opinion and my "opinion" wasn't that big of a opinion as I state that celebrities should have pages no matter what they did in their personal life. you should have given a warning to the discussion starter. I mean no harm or vandalism . From SomeBodyAnyBody05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@SomeBodyAnyBody05: Your opinion that all celebrities should have articles is clearly contrary to our guidelines, and your first edit was inappropriate because it attacked the previous editor, rather than his/her edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

2020s Edits

Hey Arthur

Thanks for the message that you left on my talk page. As I'm new here, I'm not fully aware of the exact guidelines of Wikipedia. However, you mentioned that I had added personal and opinionated material. May I ask which sections of my edit that this was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMonkey2006 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually it's true since wikipedia is a enclyopedia and should include almost all celebrities no matter what they are notable of. And I didn't attack anybody If you actually read what I said I was backing up your precious guidelines as wikipedia should be of fact. The original discussion attacks the wikipedia page as a whole. And also you Immediately removing The Lynn Hauldren entry is also insufficient as lynn hauldren was actually very notable as the running mascot for the empire company. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lynn Hauldren is clearly not notable. I question whether he even meets Wikipedia notability standards, as it appears he is known only for the Empire Today ads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Well he is technically a celebrity as his likeness is still being used after his death. You can't say he is not notable of having a page when you have one even though if I go into the generalpublic of the city I inhabit and ask them who Arthur Rubin is and no shocker they wouldn't know. PS I posted my reply on the wrong discussion page. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would propose moving his article to Empire Man, per WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
You'll notice the Empire Man section is longer than the rest of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of expansion of Universe in "Timeline of the far future" article

It's not completely clear why, but after some 9 months all of the material I added regarding the expansion of the Universe was removed from the above article.

There is a relevant section on the talk page. Perhaps some additional comment as to the rationale could be made there? (It seems the discussion of the Universe being vacuum at 10^106 years was not arbitrary as that was the point at which all Black Holes will have evaporated. The specifics provided were mathematically computed from conservative published future values of the Hubble parameter. I can see how some might debate the earlier entries, but I don't really understand why the last one doesn't pass muster). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsbaker0 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

AE appeal result

Your appeal request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard has been closed. The result of the appeal is that your topic ban from the subject of gun control is converted to a 1RR restriction for any edits in the gun control area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

October 2079

Thank you for the constructive feedback regarding my recent edits to the 2020 page. I have taken appropriate actions in accordance with your advice. User:216.230.42.71 Talk to me 04:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My edits on 2090s

I have no idea why you'd do this because the scheduled events I listed, were in fact, True. There is factual proof that the government has said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamBeanFanatic2 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit?

Hey,

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia so still trying to understand why my edit on the 2020s page about ongoing major protests in India was changed in your revision, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020s&type=revision&diff=938879663&oldid=938757655

Was there a reason for that, or something that I don't know? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardeepasrani (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hardeepasrani: It appears I clicked on the wrong button. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. There were some serious errors that I removed, but yours weren't among them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: Can you undo the changes? Thank you!! Hardeepasrani (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hardeepasrani: Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock connection

This edit [2] was reverted with given reason, a new account seems to have been created just to add this information back [3]. The new account [4]. Well am not sure if this is sufficient for an SPI but since you are a senior editor in time line articles I am bring the matter to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, It's almost certainly not Nolan; it has different Wikiformat errors and stylistic differences, and uses a different source. However, it seems legitimate to keep notes, on Wikipedia, about these additions. If a pattern arises, we can bring it up, later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will keep watch, thanks for your response. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future

Saw the edit backwards when I reverted it, thought I was replacing "rising" with "increasing" lol. Anyway thanks! MaxwellMolecule (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop reverting all of my edits?

Please stop reverting every single edit that I make. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 00:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Analog Horror: Only the edits that are factually incorrect or grammatically incorrect without making factual changes. That does seem to be most of your edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Analog Horror: You're right. I also reverted one which added unsourced unnecessary ephemeral information. I couldn't tell if it was factually incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

21st century

I changed the tense here for consistency with every other sport in that section which all use the past tense. - Blurryman (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Blurryman:. A quick scan of the page shows the rest of the article is in the historical present, which I believe is the agreed convention, although I wouldn't know where to look for the agreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
It is certainly not the case that "the rest of the article is in the historical present". What I see from a quick read through the early part of the article is a pretty chaotic mix of past, present (which is sometimes appropriate since it is the present century), and historical present, sometimes in the same sections. If there is a convention, whichever it is, there are a lot of people not following it! And if you insist on historical present in the "Motorsport" section, shouldn't you change all the other sport sections so that they are consistent? - Blurryman (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The use of the historical present was raised a few years ago, here, but no one took it up. In MOS:TENSE, it is stated "Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead", and there is no specific mention of historical present. My own view is that it is a dramatic device which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Blurryman (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

17

Regarding my addition to the 17 page, I thought the info very relevant. Since there are only 2 entries under Video Games, I wanted to add that there is a website where, currently, 179 instances of the number 17 in video games is catalogued. If you'd show me how, I could add the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politishin (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

You have been asked to explain some things at your ANI thread. Please answer there before you make any more edits in the main space. Thanks. Stephen 10:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I note that this diff shows you using rollback with a summary of "WP:EVADE", and WP:ROLLBACKUSE clearly states "To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)" (emphasis mine) You must give an explanation as soon as possible or you risk being sanctioned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing the mainspace until you answer all questions raised at your ANI thread. Stephen 22:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: You sure did some good work on Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions (and related pages) back in the day, and I hope you can help with that page again. So I hope you can get these issues resolved. DougHill (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"bad image"

Could you please explain your rationale behind reverting the inclusion of a far better image with the edit summary "bad image" here, and in other places please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Almost all of his additions are professional, but inappropriate, images. It's possible that he is replacing a bad image with an ordinary one, but none of them have been good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
No, the question I'm asking is why the images he's using are (according to you) "bad"? There seems no problem at all with the licensing arrangements. Could you be explicit with why the images in question are, per your edit summary "bad image"s? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
For instance, why is File:Keizo Obuchi cropped 1 Keizo Obuchi 19980730.jpg a "bad image" compared to File:Keizo Obuchi.jpg ? Please elucidate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course, if there's no real reason other than your opinion that these are "bad images" then I'll restore them all. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
(ec)It's not bad licensing. (At least, not always.) They are apparently professional images, but just not good. They are mostly professional publicity photographs, and not intended to be (IMO) or actually a good likeness. If you want to take credit for restoring his images, and want to take responsibility for us using publicity photographs, rather than photographs depicting the subject, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
In the case of Keizo Obuchi, the licensing really is problematic as the former was actually PD, while the latter is a Government-of-Japan license which is claimed by be compatible with CC-BY 4.0, which is not obviously compatible with CC-BY-SA, and there is considerably more glare from his head.
If you restore them all, without checking them out, I will report you for edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course you will. But your excuses aren't valid. The Obuchi license, for example, is NOT problematic. The advice given is just that, advice. There's no reason to not use that image at all in Wikipedia. But for your benefit, and for the avoidance of doubt, please take this message as evidence that I will have checked every image. It appears to me that you are making mass edits with no good reason, and edit summaries like "bad image" are utterly unhelpful and a timesink for the rest of us trying to unpick the issues created by your mass reverts. If you want to help Wikipedians make this a better place with patently better images, please contribute constructively to the debate, discuss the merits and reasons for inclusion or exclusion of images with the editors (even IPs) in question rather than mass reverting with inappropriate and inadequate edit summaries. That might have been okay in 2008 but it's not okay now and you can threaten me however much you like but it's you in the wrong so I'll look forward to you being reminded about your responsibilities here. As an editor of course, you failed to live up to your responsibilities as an admin, right? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
You have failed to live up to your responsibilities as an admin, as well. I have tried discussing the failed merits of his images under various of his IPs, and his usual response to a message on his talk page is to reset his IP, especially when he is blocked, which has happened at least 7 times since the beginning of February. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. And you are edit warring now. Please stop doing this Arthur. I don't want you banned from the project and you're defending the indefensible. The images in question are better than the ones you are edit warring to restore. If you like, please start an AN thread about it to ensure there is some sense from outside to help you from being blocked because right now, this is silly. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I did exactly what you asked me to do. In each and every case, I checked the article, I checked the image before and after, I checked the licensing, and I concluded that in every case, the image the IP used was better and still appropriate. You are, of course, at liberty to pursue this to the nth degree, but I can't see a single issue here other than your fake edit summaries claiming these all to be "bad images". I'll be happy to discuss that at any location on Wikipedia or beyond. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
And finally, I tell you what Arthur, I'll leave it to you now. If you edit war, I'll notify ANI and we can go from there. These images are being used across multiple Wikipedias, and your fake summaries "bad image" etc are a serious indictment. I get it that you're pissed about some random IP making changes to the pages you watch, but in some cases like this, the changes are for the better. Accusing me of proxying for a banned editor is pretty low so the less said about that the better, I'd suggest you refrain from that kind of outburst going forward. But, when all's said and done, if you really believe that you're not owning those pages and the images which are poorly exposed, badly framed, awkwardly angled etc are better than those being proposed, and you genuinely believe that, let's get others involved and have an adult discussion about it. It's up to you. You offered to allow me to reinstate the images if I checked them all, and then you edit-warred to reinstate them with more threats. Over to you. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Arthur, I don't know what it is that stops you from acknowledging that you made an error, but I"d be more than happy for you to retract the assertions about my editing, and then just carry on? I'm not a monster, and I know you're a gifted contributor to the project. But you must accept that I did exactly what you asked and in spite of that you went full tilt at ANI and refused to accept you made a mistake and refused to apologise. I'd be happy to work in your favour to get you unblocked if you showed any sense of contrition that you fucked up and that you accept you treat those IPs poorly. If we can start some dialogue around that, then perhaps you might be welcome back to edit? Just a thought, the irony being that you used to be an admin and now you're indef blocked and I used to an admin but I'm creating GAs left, right and centre. And reviewing some too. Let me know if you'd like some help getting back on the straight and narrow here. It's easy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Arthur, the offer above still stands. Happy to help you find your way back whenever you like. Stay safe in these troubled times. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Screenshot showing what the Reply tool looks like
This early version of the Reply tool automatically signs and indents comments.

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

Reply tool improved with edit tool buttons
In a future update, the team plans to test a tool for easily linking to another user's name, a rich-text editing option, and other tools.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

  • On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
  • The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
    • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
    • a rich-text visual editing option, and
    • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Sorry to hear that you retired from here. Thanks for all you have done. LoreMaster22 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #2 – Quick updates

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Mockup of the new reply feature, showing new editing tools
The new features include a toolbar. What do you think should be in the toolbar?

This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.

– Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3

On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

  • The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
  • More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
  • Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
  • The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
  • Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
  • On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
  • In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Arthur Rubin. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Arthur Rubin/Archive 2020,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #4

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

  • More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
  • Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
  • Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[5]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures

  • The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
  • Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 22nd century in fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 22nd century in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22nd century in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beland (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

  • New partnership: Taxmann
  • WikiCite
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_Rubin/Archive_2020&oldid=1190245913"