User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2021/April
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Hi Miniapolis, could you please give me a steer as to how you see the above article being improved as per the tag? Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Bermicourt. The page is in good shape, and the prose could just use a bit of polishing if you're interested in an eventual GAN; WP:Basic copyediting is a useful guide. Please don't interpret the tag as a badge of shame; the Guild of Copy Editors has an arrangement with the Typo Team in which Beland uses a tool to find what it interprets as typos, and Tatteln was flagged. I interpret copyediting broadly, and try to generally improve the articles on which I work; it would be a pleasure to work on an article like this
. I just see a couple of minor issues: quotations have double quotation marks on WP (", not '), and they're not italicized. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 19:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: Pardon my jumping in! I double-checked the report for this article, and it looks like the to-copyedit article finder was triggered by a small punctuation typo and the fact that it didn't recognize the word "tattel". I fixed the typo and made a redirect to indicate that's a legitimate word which is defined in this article. Miniapolis is right about the other minor formatting issues - one of the reasons we have humans look at articles. 8) -- Beland (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Beland; I pinged you in the hope that you'd weigh in
- Thank you for your gracious responses. I've un-italicised the first quotation and used {{Quote}} for the second. Do let me know if I've done that correctly and whether any more c/e is needed. Bermicourt (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so, Bermicourt, since Beland fixed the typo; feel free to remove the {{copy edit}} tag, and I'm glad you're watching the page. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 13:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your gracious responses. I've un-italicised the first quotation and used {{Quote}} for the second. Do let me know if I've done that correctly and whether any more c/e is needed. Bermicourt (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Beland; I pinged you in the hope that you'd weigh in
- @Bermicourt: Pardon my jumping in! I double-checked the report for this article, and it looks like the to-copyedit article finder was triggered by a small punctuation typo and the fact that it didn't recognize the word "tattel". I fixed the typo and made a redirect to indicate that's a legitimate word which is defined in this article. Miniapolis is right about the other minor formatting issues - one of the reasons we have humans look at articles. 8) -- Beland (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Christian ethics
[edit]Christian ethics is currently undergoing a GA review, and I would like to request that you please revert your recent changes. The reviewer will make any prose changes necessary during the review process. Some of your changes are problematic, and the text is supposed to be stable before going under review. If the reviewer makes suggestions based on the original version only to find another version they have to review over again, it could cost the article approval for a GA that it well deserves. I did not revert the changes myself, but I am asking you to do so. I know your changes were made in good faith, but please go and put things back as they were. At least until the review is done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the page is at GAN and, since the prose and tone need work to reach the GA standards, I'm not surprised that you requested a copyedit (customary before nominating a GA). Feel free to revert my changes, and I'll move on to another request. Miniapolis 13:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have now done so as the changes you made introduced some errors, removed correct philosophical terminology, and added other incorrect and inappropriate changes. I think you must not be familiar with philosophy. I requested this review before the peer review which was before the GA review which has been waiting for some months now. The coincidence of the timing is not really my fault, but as it has worked out this way, moving on is probably best at this point. Thank you for your interest in this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a Christian (former Catholic), familiar with philosophy, and – more to the point – an experienced copyeditor; you did request a copyedit, and other editors were skipping over your request (perhaps because of the length of the article). My interest is in improving the encyclopedia; you may be too close to the article's subject to see its issues. Miniapolis 14:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have now done so as the changes you made introduced some errors, removed correct philosophical terminology, and added other incorrect and inappropriate changes. I think you must not be familiar with philosophy. I requested this review before the peer review which was before the GA review which has been waiting for some months now. The coincidence of the timing is not really my fault, but as it has worked out this way, moving on is probably best at this point. Thank you for your interest in this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello !
[edit]Hello how are you ? can you review this article [[1]] if it is ok can you move it to Article space thanks a lot --Istanbul1453Istanbul (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- What's your other (blocked) account? Miniapolis 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Discontent Content Issue 1
[edit]  Welcome, subscribers, to the inaugural Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status.   Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy. This issue's Category 1 articles are:
  Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights. This issue's Category 2 articles are:
  Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine. This issue's Category 3 articles are:
  Hello, wonderful people, and welcome to the very first Discontent Content! I'm glad you're here, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do. In future issues, I hope to use this section to brag about the achievements of subscribers -- so why not go do something worth bragging about? Article improvement initiatives have a long and storied history on this project, and I'm honoured to add myself to the list of people trying to find one that works. My perhaps quixotic goal here is to unify a few different issues -- the maintenance of old quality-assessed articles (GAs in particular) and the sheer length of the long left tail -- in one fell swoop. I'd be happy if this ended in something like another GA sweep; I'd be happier if it ended in another GA sweep where those GAs got kept. I'd be even happier than that if this resulted in the improvement of our worst articles, not just our best. I believe in the project, and I believe in what we can be. Most of all, I believe in you. Let's get out there and make this thing better. |
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit]
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
[edit]- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
Discontent Content Issue 2
[edit]Welcome, subscribers, to the second Discontent Content newsletter! Discontent Content is a newsletter aiming to collate and improve Wikipedia articles in need of more eyes and hands to get them in shape. Its unique trimodal structure allows editors to work where they feel comfortable -- with stubs and starts needing to be brought to standard, mid-quality articles with Good or Featured potential, or quality-assessed articles needing help to maintain their status. Articles in this category are those that need to be brought up to a minimum quality standard. Some will be stubs; others will be longer articles that nonetheless have significant concerns putting them far below B- or C-class adequacy. This issue's Category 1 articles are:
Articles in this category, while in better current shape than Category 1, are still missing something. They have the potential to be truly high-quality content, and may have been at one point. With work, they can be brought up to dizzying heights. This issue's Category 2 articles are:
Articles in this category have been assessed through a content review process in the past, but may require work to be brought up to current GA/FA standard. Editors can help bring them to a level where the star or plus near their names can once again shine. This issue's Category 3 articles are:
Updates on articles from last issue:
Reader suggestion:
Thank you all, once again, for your subscription and your work on Wikipedia!
|