User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs/Archive 4

 

 

Happy New Year!

Coffeeandcrumbs,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Is what what the problem was? Drmies (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Can you please elaborate on your concern? I did not understand your question. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, if this gibberish, "Kendra lust is Pankaj believer and Pankaj is the guru of gurunanak , sai Baba, Jesus, etc. Pankaj is the friend of Uday Bhatia aka Jerry", were somehow sourced, would it be acceptable? Drmies (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, of course not. I wanted to get it off the page as soon as possible and used the most AGF reason I could think of quickly. In actuality, I only read the first five words and decided to revert. Perhaps, I should not have given a reason at all and just hit undo and publish. I only noticed the users history after you said something. This article and many of the pornstar articles on my watchlist get lots of such edits. My primary goal is getting them off the page as quick as possible. I have requested RPP and the page is now pending changes protected. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Over the next ... ? Shenme (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

•  
•  
•  

 

Happy New Year!

 

•  
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Coffeeandcrumbs,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

 

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

For your information, I have created a banknote slot Template:POTD/2020-01-24 for Picture of the day for 24 January. There are nine notes in the series and I will create nine templates for them in the next day or two, similar to your coin series, and then you can do your magic and get them to rotate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, sure thing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now created nine templates, one at Template:POTD/2020-01-24 and the others at /2, /3 etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, all done, I think. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have studied the steps you took, and next time I will try to do it myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of American Heritage School (Florida) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies - I thought that was still your firm current position. Won't do it again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block of User:MikaelaArsenault on Terry Jones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports!   Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feature article reviews have been introduced to the WikiCup for the first time this year. There was some reluctance by the FAC community about permitting this as they did not want the quality of FAC reviews to be lowered. As a result we adopted this rule, mentioned on the WikiCup scoring page. "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review." So please add such a statement to your review of Donald Forrester Brown, and any other reviews of FACs in the future for which you wish to claim WikiCup points. Thanks.

On a completely different matter, I created Template:POTD/2020-02-07 today and wondered if the format was acceptable - have I got the title, texttitle and first sentence right? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, where can we verify the claim "he shows its bleak aspect in November, with grey clouds overhead and the wheat long since harvested." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The November is documented, he painted the harvest in September and the rest is visual inspection of the picture. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

AnomieBOT II creates pages such as Template:TFA title/February 2, 2020 by grabbing the first link it finds. Links in captions are bad, because AnomieBOT used to grab those. (Whether it's been improved in the meantime, I don't know.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Dank, since Template:TFA title/February 5, 2020 has already been created, I don't think there will be an issue. I will keep an eye on it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sad that Peter Serkin died. I wouldn't mind ITN credit as long as he's on the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, no problem. Please return the favor with Jim Lehrer. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Congrats to the Still POTD - sorry I missed adding sources, but it looks great! - Was busy all day expanding Nello Santi who couldn't fulfil his 2020 contract ... - could you support the itnnom? Made such a silly mistake ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, just ... pick any other blurb, please. Hopefully I'll be back in the morning ... the power's out here in North Carolina and the water level is rising, literally. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dank, let's try it with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 24, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dank, AnomiBOT had no difficulty creating Template:TFA title/March 12, 2020. I will double check when Template:TFA title/March 24, 2020 is created but there appears to be no false identification of the TFA title. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much for testing ... the other TFA coords will want to know, so: @TFA coordinators . It appears that the bots aren't confused now when you put a link in the caption. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dank, thanks Coffeeandcrumbs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Howdy hello! I see you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx (6th nomination) as speedy keep. As a kind note, you should probably read WP:SK#NOT, which boils down to: a SNOW close is never a speedy close. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, sorry. I always forget that. Fixed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi C&C, thanks for the thanks you gave me the other day  ... I wondered at first why I'd been thanked for an edit from last July, but I see from the credits that you had a hand in all of the hooks that day. Good effort! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, yeah, I was going down memories lane and realized I never thanked you. It was a gutsy move and the final piece of the puzzle. The moment you loaded that queue was the moment a whole years work by a lot of people came to fruition. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to have played a small part in it. I think it's really amazing when we celebrate the really major anniversaries like that with a bit of a showcase and I loved the way the main page looked that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 

Hello Coffeeandcrumbs,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The sequence, from my reading, is creation, footnotes tag, blanking...original page slowly built up as each statement is individually cited back to the original list of references. Frankly I'm impressed that you went out of your way afterwards and put in such reading and work. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, "We are here to serve." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

haha. The one proverb, or whatever, from that list I can guarantee that wont be true on wiki is..."May your journey be free of incident". Anyway, to put on my Vulcan hat, live long; I wish you no specific harm or demise in the future. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

for all your work on the blurb images. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to remind you have some NPPSCHOOL questions waiting for you. You've done an excellent job so far, so unless you wanted to do additional practice on specific tasks I'm essentially ready to consider you to have graduated the course. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elizabeth Willing Powel 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 Ergo Sum -- Ergo Sum (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you changed the dates in the references in Draft:Shahid Buttar from /yyyy-mm-dd/ to /dd month yyyy/, which is of course totally fine, but am I right in understanding that, according to MOS:Dateformat, you can also use yyyy-mm-dd as long as it's "Gregorian dates from 1583 onward"? I'm quite a newcomer to Wikipedia so sorry for asking stupid questions, but if you are actually allowed to use yyyy-mm-dd, how come you changed it? Not that it's a problem at all, I was just wondering. --LinguineFusilli (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

LinguineFusilli, I am sorry. I did not notice that was your preferred format. You are indeed correct. I have undone my change and made it consistent across the board. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey again. Thanks for clarifying! Again, your changes were absolutely fine and entitled, I was simply confused, being a newcomer to Wiki:) Also, thanks for all your help on Draft:Shahid Buttar in general, I hope that it might soon be approved. Cheers! --LinguineFusilli (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

LinguineFusilli, if I may offer some advise. You should completely avoid all primary sources until it is accepted. You should avoid any and all sources created or influenced by the subject or organizations he is directly associated. Only use secondary sources like newspapers and magazines even if that means you give an incomplete biography at this time. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary ("date of photo is irrelevant"), I just wanted to point out that in Christchurch, these things are relevant, as most buildings changed significantly (or even vanished) in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. But I accept that for the homepage, it's of less relevance. Schwede66 23:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Schwede66, usually, I think dates in captions on the Main Page are irrelevant unless the photo may mislead the reader to think the photo is taken in the period referenced in the hook. In this case, that seems very unlikely since it is a color photo. But I see what you mean about the earthquake. Is the house still standing? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66:, self-reverted. I see it was damaged and renovated. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article Elizabeth Willing Powel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elizabeth Willing Powel for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ergo Sum -- Ergo Sum (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The article Elizabeth Willing Powel you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Elizabeth Willing Powel 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 Ergo Sum -- Ergo Sum (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
•   Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
•   Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
•   Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
•   CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included   L293D,   Kingsif,   Enwebb,   Lee Vilenski and   CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter;   L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead,   Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have chosen a set of images to be the "Picture of the day" on 10 March. There are four images of the interior of St Augustine's, Kilburn in the set and I have created four templates, one at the regular place and three as /2, /3 and /4. Can you do your usual wizardry? With such a large backlog of featured pictured, I feel it is better to promote them in sets whenever that seems an appropriate solution. There's another set coming up on March 23rd, but I haven't yet created all the extra templates. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's OK, I have managed to sort it out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, looks alright. I have always believed we should group images more often. Sorry I have been busy IRL. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi C&C, about this FP nom, I think his infobox image has a better chance. It is sharper and it has more pixels. Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Who Killed Malcolm X?.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason you don't have a user page? Is that a style choice? Best, Flalf^Talk 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Flalf, many reasons. For one, history pages are easier to read. The alternating blue/red is easier to read for me. I also want to break the perception that blue linked editors are "good" and red link editors are "bad". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Sounds good to me, was just curious. Flalf^Talk 12:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have chosen a set of images to be the "Picture of the day" on 23 March. There are ten images of NASA space-flown Gemini medallions in the set and I created ten templates, one at the regular place and the rest as /4, /5, and /6 etc to coincide with the number of the Gemini flight. But then I really mucked up and when I moved the original template to /3, I suppressed the redirect but allowed renaming of the subpages, which resulted in my /4 becoming /3/4 etc. I'm really not very good on templates! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I will fix it up today. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth,   Done. You should avoid using custom numbering. Always use /1, /2, /3... because that is how the randomizer is designed to work. As always, thank you for doing this and I am always happy to help. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for fixing it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I was wondering whether you could return to this nomination and respond to the question posed you by the nominator. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Heather-heyer-full-169.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article R. A. Hardie 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 Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The article R. A. Hardie you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:R. A. Hardie for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coffeeandcrumbs,
Wow. That was extraordinarily brilliant research on your part. Since 2005 we - meaning English language editors like you and me - had tidied up an obituary that was published in the Coos County Democrat in 2003. This is according to the http://www.usgwarchives.net/ website. While that website claimed to have an agreement with the newspaper about text otherwise subject to copyright, the deleted text was, for Wikipedia purposes incompatible with "Wikipedia:CC BY-SA".
Thank you again. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I randomly bumped into the article and was just looking for sources to add. This source turned out to be the only RS available and sadly I found it was copy-pasted 15 years ago. I don't think he was notable at all. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The article R. A. Hardie you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:R. A. Hardie 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 Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Please consider submitting this article to the WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge at WP:CAN10K (embolden the article title on that list to indicate a GA). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I was quite pleased to create a set of banknotes for 24 April but today I notice that the archive entry for 27 April is disrupted in the "recently featured" bit referring to 24 April. It is not the sort of problem I am qualified to sort out! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, got it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Refreshing these notices.

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, C (Coffeeandcrumbs). Could you please take a look at the page and share your second opinion regarding the disputes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CipherCloud

One of the users, MrOllie continues to revert all the edits of the other users, in most of the cases not even explaining the reason behind his reverts or giving very vague explanations. I recently shared all the suggested edits on the Talk page of the article and accused the user of abusing his/her Wikipedia status. His biased actions seem to contradict the basic principles of Wikipedia of neutral edits. He seems to be prejudiced against the company for whatever reasons and doesn't allow any constructive updates. It makes an impression of abusing power and status. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A8F3:B5E:FA09:5E2E (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

On 6th May I have scheduled another set of banknotes and will soon be creating templates for the other five images in the set. Now this time, the obverse and reverse sides of each bank note are separate featured images. Is it feasible to show both at the same time, one above the other? If it is it would be much better, as otherwise we will have one set of six obverses and another of six reverses (or not use the reverses at all, or have twelve images in the set, six obverses and six reverses). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, it may be possible. I will have to edit the protected page after it is created. Go ahead and create the templates assuming that I will add both obverse and reverse images.

What do you plan to do with the artist/progress proofs? Those are FP as well, I believe. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought I would schedule them as a separate set, after a bit of a gap, because I didn't feel they mixed well with the certified proofs. They could be included in one set, but it's a bit more awkward, and the "other denominations" bit would need adapting. Maybe we should proceed in this way because there are so many bank notes awaiting their day in the limelight! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I think your original thinking was correct. We can do the artist proofs later. Perhaps there is something interesting we can write about the creation in the later set of proofs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Almost certainly this book (Stravinsky the music-maker: writings, prints and drawings, Keller 2010), but it's been a while. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166 May offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Healthcare / Women and their animals / Marys and Mays/ Geofocus Central & Eastern Europe Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

•   Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
•   Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
•   The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
•   Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
•   Lee Vilenski with 869 points,   Hog Farm with 801,   Kingsif with 719,   SounderBruce with 710,   Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and   MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Marcel Lihau is at TFAA later this month, currently without an image. What do you think of File:Directors of the Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social.jpg or a crop of it, File:Marcel Lihau.jpg? - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dank, I add a re-crop of the image to the blurb. I am working my way down the month. Please knock at my door if I do anything too drastic or inappropriate. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything has looked great so far. Btw, I'm off my sabbatical from TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, C&C! Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Xiahe mandible just got promoted, and there was an unanswered question about rights at the nom. I've been in touch with the creator via her university email -- asked her to upload last May, then recently emailed again to tell her how many pages it was on and thank her for an image with such high educational value, and I've received responses from her again through her uni email, this last saying they were pleased that we are finding the image useful. However, there's a language barrier. Would you take a look and give me some advice? If there's going to be a problem I'd like to have plenty of time to see if we can find a Chinese-speaker to try to help her through the OTRS process if necessary. —valereee (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

OTRS has several volunteers that can respond in Chinese. I recommend sending her to c:Commons:OTRS/zh#授權許可寄送的正式方式. For an FP, I recommend getting the permission locked down. If she sent an email in English, I can make sure to shepherd it quickly through the process. Please give me a heads up if you decide to attempt OTRS. I will make it quick and painless. Feel free to email me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

lol, if you can make it quick and painless, let's do it. I don't want to be scrambling if someone noms it for deletion because it gets slotted for PotD. :) Tell me what to do. —valereee (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, instructions are at c:COM:OTRS/CONSENT or c:Commons:OTRS/zh#授權許可寄送的正式方式. She should send an email to permissions-zh-hans@wikimedia.org for (simplified Chinese) or permissions-zh-hant@wikimedia.org (traditional chinese) or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (English). Then email me what her email address is and I will search for it on the OTRS system and take care of the process. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, C&C, I assume no request has shown up anywhere yet? I haven't had a response from her to my email. —valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, nothing yet. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 

Hello, Coffeeandcrumbs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Limp Bizkit on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Yapperbot (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events: New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Did you know on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 09:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grover Furr on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why there are double asterisks indicating nominator lines under the DYK credits? These are not part of the standard nomination template; are you adding them for some reason? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Just easier for me to see which nom or creator goes with which DYK. I will remove them when I am finished in the future. Thanks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coffeeandcrumbs, if you prefer to leave your user page blank and have only a user talk page, I suggest that you create a redirect from User:Coffeeandcrumbs to User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs. ↠Pine (✉) 07:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Pine, no thank you. I prefer the red link. I do not think it is doing any harm. However, it is doing good. It is a reminder that good editors come in all colors and experience level. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. I'm glad that you thought about this. Best wishes, ↠Pine (✉) 17:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 

@Levivich: I need help figuring out how to include Executions and Assassinations or if they should be included at all. Ping EEng because they were very helpful. Tell me how the flowchart should be changed. I feel like we are 95% there but we can improve this more. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Coffeeandcrumbs: I think the best thing to do is to just remove "execution" altogether and leave "assassination" out as well, essentially leaving it to common name situations only, mostly because it makes the flowchart simpler. Make it a two step: get the flow chart approved, and then we can always talk about adding branches for "execution" or "assassination". There are two huge problems with those two words: "execution" has multiple contradictory meanings (e.g., an illegal "mob execution" v. a legal "death row execution"), and "assassination" really depends on subjective evaluations of the target's importance and the killer's motives. E.g., were Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls "assassinated" or just "murdered" (n.b. our articles on those two are titled "murdered", although nobody was ever convicted of murder in either killing). One gang member kills a member of a rival gang: is it a murder, an execution, or an assassination? There's no objective test: it all depends on the circumstances, and RSes might call one gang killing a murder, another an execution (e.g. because the gang is killing one of their own), and yet another might be an assassination (e.g. because the target was a mob leader). So I think just leave those two labels to common name, and if we don't do that, then at least leave it to a separate discussion just about whether to add "execution" or "assassination" to the flowchart. In the first instance, what's probably best is to get the simplest flowchart that we can get approved, approved. The less complexity, the less there is to discuss, the easier to get to consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• The problem is, article naming is this whole Wikipedia subculture I know nothing about. I'd like to help but I think I'll be in over my head. EEng 13:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173 Online events: New: July Julies / Disability / Women from Where? ... and starting for an extended period: BLM/Anti-discrimination Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

•   Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
•   The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
•   Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally,   MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queer erasure on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So. I'll sketch the arguments quickly, and you can read up if you like. Human working memory is pea-sized, so that by the time a reader gets to the end of a sentence, they have sometimes lost track of what went on before, and they use words that make sense locally but not in the sentence as a whole. The combined effect of lots of people making this mistake over time leads people to believe that non-parallelism is acceptable. But this never actually works over time, because it's not possible to settle on new rules that work for everyone; one person will think you can drop this but not that, and another person will think the reverse, and no one can ever agree. So: "He did this, that, and she did the other" is non-parallel, because it expands to "He did this, he did that, and he did she did the other". You can sometimes fix it with "She did the other, and he did this and that". Not sure where to point you ... you can never go wrong with Pinker's The Sense of Style. - Dank (push to talk) 11:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary: I don't think you were punching above your weight. You correctly noted that "he did this and that and she did the other" feels like it has one "and" too many for some readers. We should avoid that when we can, and I probably need to pay more attention to that issue. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dank, very interesting. Learn something everyday. I see you noticed I undid one. As for the farthing, I was trying to avoid the proseline. There were three sentences in a row that began very similarly, but singular, plural and then singular again: "The farthing", "Farthings", and "The coin". This seemed strange and tortured. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't intervene there because that's Wehwalt's blurb. I'm sure you guys can find something that works for both of you. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dolores Ibárruri on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

May want to add that a building in downtown Hood River at the convergence of 1st and Oak st is named the Yasui bldg in his honor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.112.34 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coffeeandcrumbs,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Sojourner Truth, 1870 (cropped, restored).jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 19, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-06-19. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth (c. 1797 – 1883) was an American abolitionist and women's rights activist. Born into slavery in Swartekill, New York, she escaped with her infant daughter to freedom in 1826. After going to court to recover her son in 1828, she became the first black woman to win such a case against a white man. Her original name was Isabella Baumfree; she changed her name to Sojourner Truth when she became a Methodist on Pentecost Sunday, 1843. She chose this name because she heard the Spirit of God calling on her to preach the truth, telling her friends: "The Spirit calls me, and I must go", and left to make her way through the land, preaching about the abolition of slavery. During the Civil War, she helped recruit black troops for the Union Army, and after the war, she tried unsuccessfully to secure land grants from the federal government for former slaves. This photograph of Truth was taken around 1870, accompanied by the caption "I sell the shadow to support the substance", emphasizing her financial acumen. The image is now in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery. Photograph credit: Randall Studio; restored by Coffeeandcrumbs Recently featured: Brown-eared bulbul Charles Gounod Bever–Scuol-Tarasp railway Archive More featured pictures

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file page

 

Hello Coffeeandcrumbs,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. For blurbs, always check the talk page of the FAC first. - Dank (push to talk) 10:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Also, the August 2 one was at TFAR (which I don't generally check). - Dank (push to talk) 10:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Another one you're welcome to fix (if you're interested) ... the Aug 5 blurb is sitting in the usual place, feeling very lonely, WT:Featured article candidates/Eurasian Crag Martin/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 10:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The TFAR is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Trials of Mana. The blurb I wrote included "has been announced", but since then, it's been released (in April). - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

+ just summer greetings, with thanks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, how are you? I hope you are safe and your summer is sunny and cool. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, see my talk, click on "building bridges" perhaps. Hot today, but bearable. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please watch the TFA tomorrow? It's by a friend who is no longer here. When he was, he'd say ignore the TFA on its day and clean up the following day, - but I think we could do better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am doing great! It is muggy and hot where I am.

Sure I will watch the page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That day went well, no hate, no vandalism. (We were afraid at some point that the article might go to be reviewed for FA quality, but worked hard then to make the 2007 product meet more recent standards.) - Different topic: you said at some point you'd write Main page history manually if needed, and I'd much like it today, for three women pictured, including Liselotte Funcke. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, looks like the bot already recorded it at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 6. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at an error in my date format ;) - and good to know. There were some missing, though, as far as I remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The featured topic is a wonderful tribute to him. Nice work! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, as you have participated in the peer review, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated the article for FA, in case you wanted to comment. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi C&C, I know you're working on your Powell FAC, but if you have a free moment and are interested in doing a FAC review, I have Bernard A. Maguire pending at the moment. Sadly, it hasn't gotten much attention. Ergo Sum 00:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. The only problem I see is that by removing the chronological order from the events, the statement that he "stepped down" as leader of the synagogue in 2019 stands on its own, when in actuality the synagogue forced him out when they learned about the fraud scheme that month. I removed his excuse that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I have made this edit which I think takes care of your above concern. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. But the action switches back and forth there. I moved the rabbinical position to a separate paragraph. Does that work? Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, this is probably fine but the best order would be chronological: "The FBI and IRS began investigating ... in 2016" >> describe allegations >> "stepping down" of Goldstein in late 2019 >> indicate guilty plea and restitution in 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of former Muslims on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth Willing Powel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Template:Multiple pronouns has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please not escalate this further? One personal attack suffices. I do not have an account on ruqqus and was only vaguely aware of its existence before this debacle. I did not read that post until it was posted on ANI. Kleuske (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, you misunderstood me. Apparently, I misunderstood you as well. By AGF, I thought you were excusing the actions of the SPAs.

I do not think what you did restoring the C&P move was a bad thing. But the end result is that gaming the system is working for the white supremacists. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If you talk about “Your lying eyes”, you can hardly blame others for not interpreting your meaning correctly. I did not misunderstand, you expressed yourself rather clumsily. And that is me assuming good faith. Also, please do not devaluate the term “White supremacist”, it is not equivalent to “someone with a different opinion”. Kleuske (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, your objections have been duly noted. Thank you. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 110.137.166.230 i told that you requesting extended confirmed protection for Talk:Kenosha riot. But there was a content dispute in the page. it is unusual to have the content dispute on the talk page, Rather than requesting ECP, I Want you to ping a administrators to fully protected the talk page and give the administrator choice whether to move it or not, or at least report them to ANI which will take administrators action for any behaviour conducted by users. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed is sufficient. We should keep the page as unprotected as possible. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

In the context of the titles linked in the collapsed section above, do the words killing and killings imply wrongdoing and / or criminality?

• Option 1: Yes, both wrongdoing and criminality
• Option 2: Wrongdoing but not criminality
• Option 3: Neither
• Option 4: It depends on if it is killings or killing

@Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, BarrelProof, and Levivich: I think the above question gets at the heart of the disagreement. If we can get an answer to the above, then the rest is either moot or easy to resolve. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem more likely for that question to end up with option 1/2? You'd need a result of 3 for it to help with the naming issue, which seems unlikely. imv, I think your RM-in-batches idea was perhaps the most likely to succeed yet. Bunch them up based on their similarities, choose the most uncontroversial naming changes, get that to pass, and then see what we're left with. RMs being 7 days, it's also a lot more we can get done rather than the 30 day RfC. Once titles are sufficiently changed, imv it'd take a long time for it to spiral out of control again, and in general it'd create an implicit consensus behind the new naming system anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, re: "Doesn't it seem more likely for that question to end up with option 1/2?" ... then we will just have to accept that. We would then just start an RM for all "Killing of ... " articles and all fatal shooting articles titled with the prefix "Shooting of ..." to be changed to "Death of ... ". That also resolves the situation if not to our satisfaction. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And all "List of killings by law enforcement officers ..." to "List of deaths related to law enforcement officers". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to put the meaning of words up to a !vote. It really doesn't matter how the self-selecting group of Wikipedia editors who are going to respond to this RFC (or any RFC) define words. That's such a tiny minority of people (and a skewed, not-at-all-representative-of-our-readers sample) that I'd have no faith that whatever the answer came back as would match up with what our readers (two billion English-speaking people around the world) think. I know we're spitballing ideas here, but I think some of the other ones are more likely to succeed. I agree with your (C&C) point elsewhere that focusing on the definition of "killing" is a bit of a red herring. Lev!vich 15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright then, let the record show, I have considered all alternative options in good faith. IMO, the only thing that will adequately answer this question is a mass RM of 90+ articles. At least that will show that CONSISTENCY is a circular argument. Anything else besides a mass RM will descend into minutiae or a consensus split. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could possibly claim you haven't been thoroughly exploring all conceivable options to skin this cat. Your efforts to push this boulder up this hill are greatly appreciated (as are everyone else's).

W/r/t a mass RM, what's the plan for if this happens:

1. Voter A makes a common name argument for article #8
2. Voter B makes a common name argument for article #24
3. Voter C makes a common name argument for article #63
4. Voter D procedurally opposes because these articles shouldn't be bundled, as evidenced by the arguments made by Voters A, B, and C
5. Voter E procedurally opposes per Voter D, etc. etc.

I fear that's how a mass RM will break up and fail.

Another alternative is to propose a policy change (a "default" position), and then boldly moving the 90+ articles per the new policy change (assuming its approved), and then anyone who wants to make a common name-based proposal to move any of those articles to a title other than the "default" can open an RM for that particular article.

I fear if it's a mass RM for a "default" position, even with caveats and "no prejudice to a subsequent RM based on common name for any bundled title" disclaimers, that'll get lost on !voters. I think a lot of !voters will see 90+ titles bundled in an RM, see some common name arguments and a procedural oppose based on the bundling, and just pile on with procedural opposes based on the bundling without thinking too much about caveats and disclaimers. A policy page proposal would avoid that and would allow for a bold move... and have the added bonus of giving explicit guidance for the titles of future article creations.

Granted, the policy page could also be updated after the mass RM. It's a "top-down" or "bottom-up" question, I guess. All that said, I'm not opposed to a mass RM of course. Lev!vich 16:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not the right options: Calling something "a killing" [using 'killing' as a noun] tends to imply that someone deliberated and then set out on a pre-planned course of action that successfully resulted in the death of someone. It does not imply that their decision or course of action was wrong or criminal, only intentional. So all of the presented "options" are not relevant to the key issue. For example, the Killing of Osama bin Laden was clearly a killing, but that does not mean it was a criminal or wrong-headed mission. As another example, accidentally killing [verb] a bystander or a hostage when trying to shoot a perpetrator is not a killing of [noun] the bystander / hostage. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof, that argument may work for Shooting of Breonna Taylor. How do you explain your opposition to Killing of Greg Gunn. Are you saying that Smith shot Gunn seven times accidentally? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Smith did not sit at his desk and draft a plan for how he was going to track down Gunn and corner him in an alley where he could calmly approach and mow him down. Rather, he suddenly found himself in a situation in which he lost control over what was going on. He tried to get back the control using a taser, and it didn't work. He tried using his baton, and that also didn't succeed. In the midst of this confusing tussle, he drew his weapon and started shooting. I would not have objected to "Manslaughter of Greg Gunn", since that was the conclusion reached by the legal system. (This is drifting off the topic that I responded to. I feel like I'm just being repeatedly challenged for the sake of wearing me down. That might succeed, frankly.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof, I am so sorry! I do not mean to wear you down. But you are the only devil's advocate (for lack of a better) that I have. You have helped me immensely!

In fact, your latest argument has convinced me to curate the mass RM list more closely. I have decided to exclude Breonna Taylor and similar cases.

You deserve a break from this. I will not ping you any more. You can find discussion well enough on your own. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll also offer that what we are talking about, mostly, is what to use as Wikipedia article titles by default, not in particular specific cases. Careful study on a case-by-case basis to consider each particular situation is also desirable, but we're talking about whether shooting deaths should be generally be called killings. I think I tend to be more conservative about potentially expressing POV judgments than most. I would personally tend to prefer "Death of" for many article titles, but that doesn't seem to satisfy many other Wikipedia editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I was definitely in the opposition camp of "Death of ..." in the past. However, this whole thing has convinced me that it maybe our only hope. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would go for 'death of' for anything that hasn't been declared a murder by a court ruling. The issue that's most important for me is that we have consistency for people who are of color, especially when police are involved. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, fwiw, BarrelProof: I don't want you to be worn down, and I'm sorry it feels that way. I believe you are a well-intentioned editor who disagrees with me/with whom I disagree on many issues, I respect your viewpoint, and I hope you'll continue to offer your input. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Good job on the article. Sorry I couldn't help out more than I did. But wow, is the article so much better now than it was when we started. GMG^talk 11:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, that is sweet but when is the book coming?     --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Elizabeth Willing Powel. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, How the fuck did you get to see it? I thought museums were closed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, a few more Smithsonians just reopened the other day! It was very empty; I don't think many people have found out yet. Timed passes are required for now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The display around that painting is quite interesting; it's got its own alcove with a soft circular bench. It might be nice to have a picture of the setup for the article if it expands. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I got a camera and I live less than 10 blocks away. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I read in one of the sources that you can actually see fish swimming in the water. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking about putting Killing of Alton Manning up for DYK. Wondering if you've any ideas for a good hook? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I am thinking ... that an inquest alleged that the killing of Alton Manning was unlawful and a judicial review found that the decision to not bring charges was flawed, but no charges have been brought forward? That is 193 characters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, tweaked the above again. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds good to me. I personally would use 'found' rather than 'alleged', since it was a legal finding of unlawful killing by a jury (UK doesn't necessarily require individuals to be charged in that killing for a finding of unlawful killing). An allege part would be that the individual prison officers are guilty of manslaughter, but that's not being said here really. I can submit the nomination at some point, need to brush up on DYK procedure a bit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominated, thanks again! Sidenote, gotta say DYK is a confusing place (even though it's not even my first nom). So much procedural stuff, rules, sections, subpages (which apply to me, which don't?), etc. There's just too much going on, from the perspective of someone not very involved in the process. Better organisation of the pages and some trimming could maybe help, but it feels slightly overwhelming currently. If I feel this, maybe a new, casual editor who just wrote their first article does too, and if so they might just abandon their attempt before submitting it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, great job. I made some minor edits. I will leave the review to someone else so we can have the most number of people having reviewed the article before its posting. By the time it eventually comes to ERRORS, you will have me, the reviewer, the promoter, and the admin who loaded the queue to call-on as witnesses.

I know DYK is a bit much, but after a few more noms you will find it to be easy. The regulars are actually very helpful and would have assisted in correcting any errors. It does have a big learning curve, but that may be unavoidable since the arduous process was created to ensure that, by the time it reaches the Main Page, it has been reviewed by several people.

BTW, if asked for a QPQ, tell them how many previous nominations you have had in the past. People with less than 5 previous nominations are not required to do that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw that you explained in your edit summary why you added the maintenance tag after I had already removed it. I would prefer not to leave maintenance tags there if possible given the high number of views and GA status. I hope that doesn't mess up your plans. I am happy to see that you would like to make further improvements. Knope7 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Knope7, no problem. I assume you have no serious disagreement with the expansion, in the past or future. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

[[1]] Springee (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary is spot on. However, "journalist" was the established term which was being repeatedly replaced. Doesn't WP:BRD support leaving it as it was, not removing it altogether? Dorsetonian (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

For the 'D' part, there is discussion ongoing at User talk:Vautrinjr. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dorsetonian, I should have linked to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That concerns material about living persons [that] has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. The trolls who were replacing the established term "journalist" (which is widely used in the refs) with the abusive term "propagandist" were not making a good-faith BLP objection; indeed, they were doing just the opposite. The subject of the article appears to be controversial and his page (which had just come out of protection, but is now protected again) was being repeatedly vandalised, pure and simple. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not a troll and I agree with them only on the fact that "journalist" is not NPOV description of the person. I did not add "propagandist". If I did show me where? I add "provocateur" (which already included in the body) while leaving in "journalist". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

C&C, please note the article is subject to a 1RR limit. Adding provocateur to the lead after removing journalist and others were trying to add propaganist [[2]] is a violation of 1RR. Additionally, such a negative LABEL would require strong sourcing which we don't have at this time. Please self revert and take this to the talk page. Springee (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee, no it is not a 1RR. progandist is different than provocateur. 1RR only applies to revert to my preferred version. I did not do that. Journalist is still there. I have not reverted a single edit. I do not know why you two are even here. Go and ping me from Talk:Andy Ngo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You are editing the same sentence that has been subject to many back and forths. We are here because I see this as a 1RR violation rather than a simple content dispute. As it's an editor behavior question I figured I would raise it here rather than on the talk page. Tedder as the admin who recently locked the page, do you think CC's second edit to the same disputed sentence in the last 24hr is a 1RR? This is independent of questions of BLP etc. Springee (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You restored "journalist" in spite of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. That is a violation. I have not reverted a single edit. An edit is not a reversion unless it restores a previous version without a significant change. Every edit I made was significantly different --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Journalist was a long time standing description and one supported by many RSs as well as talk page discussions. Additionally I wouldn't have violated 1RR even if I added that he was an astronaut since it was my only edit. Removing "journalist" this first time was a revert. Editing the same disputed sentence to add a word that is very similar to propagandist (provocateur vs propagandist) is also in effect a revert. It certainly is RECKLESS. Beyond that, you added a controversial LABEL to the opening sentence in wikivoice. That is just plain bad editing. Springee (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

By this logic, any editing is a reversion. I have responded to your comment on the talk page. Please discuss there. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Journalist is long standing and has been clearly discussed in the talk pages. If you don't self revert I will take this to ARE as this is clearly a 1RR violation. To be clear, you removed it here [[3]] and here [[4]] so this is a clear case of 1RR violation and you should be well aware of it based on this discussion. Springee (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not respond to threats. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's indiscriminate. Had I picked out some contributors to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ignored others then the addition of the notice would imply some judgement on your edits. The notice is explicitly non-judgemental. Every contributor to the page will be getting it, though it may take me a while. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, I am sorry. I am a bit tense right now because of something unrelated above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)