Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
English is not my first language, and I keep learning. Please explain how humble in quotation marks solves anything when no word meaning humble appears in the German original. Demut is (unfortunately) untranslatable, and humbleness and humility come closest, while the Magnificat usually has lowliness. Similarly for Hochmut = thinking too high of oneself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Google Translate says "humility", and your translation says "humbleness". In both cases, the translation is considered a "paraphrase", even if it doesn't precisely mirror the German original. (See WP:PARAPHRASE#Translation.) "Humble" is the adjective form of "humility" and "humbleness", so the word "humble" still needs to appear in quotation marks as a paraphrase. Also note that in the Magnificat article, the word "humble" appears in several translations. Edge3 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying. One more try to make myself understood: the translation of "ein Herz, das Demut übet" would be "a heart practicing humbleness", - saying "humble heart" instead is - imho - not a paraphrase but a summary. If not, what would be permitted to say without quotation marks? ... because I think they make a reader needlessly think about why they are there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: You're correct that "humble heart" would not be a paraphrase because it doesn't appear in the source. However, the word "humble" does come from the source. Because the hymn clearly uses the word "humility" or "humbleness", it is clear that "humble" is a reference to the original text. Edge3 (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd write about an image depicting a yellow house, and said it shows a yellow house, would I have to put yellow house in quotation marks? - Do you have an answer to my last question: which word to use without quotation marks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the question, and it's a very good one! :-) In the example you provide, "yellow" is not a paraphrase because it's based on fact. Any reader or observer would agree that the house is yellow. The reason that "humble" is a paraphrase is that it refers to an expression from the source text. The average reader would not have necessarily used the word "humble" if not for the fact that the word "humility" or "humbleness" appeared in the hymn. Edge3 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normally - see the New Year's resolutions on my talk - I try to stick to two comments and then walk away. But please help me, repeating: what would be permitted to say without quotation marks? ... because I think they make a reader needlessly think about why they are there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Short answer: anything but "humble" and "proud". But really, I don't think you need to change anything. The article doesn't provide an English-language translation for the hymn, so it helps the reader to know what the hymn says. Edge3 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. Sorry, you seem not even to see my problem, trying to give the reader as close a translation as possible, but wanting to get away from these ambiguous quotation marks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously being from Chicago you know what that is. I lived about a block from there in 1964 and 1965. I went to DeVry Technical Institute on Belmont Avenue to learn to become an electronics's technician. Turned out to be a very good career. I was in the aerospace industry for awhile and later repaired computers (hardware). DeVry was the time of tube technology. Transistors were just coming out.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell: That's awesome! I visit that neighborhood (Albany Park) nearly every 1-2 months. I see from your user page that you've spent a lot of time researching (and perhaps exploring) the Midwest! Your achievements are quite inspiring. I'd love to be able to write more on Wikipedia, but mainly with a Chicago or Illinois focus. Edge3 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it so happens that James Ludington (son of Lewis Ludington) founded the town I live in. It so happens that a college professor wrote a history book based on one of my Wikipedia articles - on this article I created back in 2010. He told me he is in the process of writing another history book based on another article I created. The Ludington Daily News newspaper had a front page article on me back in 2010. I write a lot of Did You Know articles and it turns out that 97% of all the articles I created in the 14 years I have been with Wikipedia have become Did You Know articles = 500 from this list. As you can see by the green GA icons on top of my User Page that I have over 100 Good Articles. It so happens that I made 31 Good Articles this last October = 1 Good Article average per day for the month. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell: Wow -- you're quite an accomplished editor! I used to be more active on this site when I was in high school and college, but I mainly focused on reviewing GA nominations. I took an extended wikibreak for several years, and now I'm back to work on Freedom of Information Act (Illinois) and related articles. In fact, I'm hoping to take that to FAC someday, but given that I'm also busy with work and other hobbies, I think I might have to settle for GAN. Edge3 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article back in 2010. Notice the resemblance to today's Haz-Mat suits that the doctors and nurses are wearing to protect themselves against the coronavirus. Even right down to the white face mask over the mouth and nose for protection against miasma = believed to be a noxious form of "bad air". Where have i heard this before? Miasma theory is typically associated with the spread of contagious diseases. I think I heard something to this effect more recently, something about a "new variant" and the like. I believe it has been in Michigan since October (or before as this sudden uptick chart shows) and told my wife then that I thought the virus mutated. Perhaps I was not that far off. They have yet to officially announce it for our state that it is this state also as in California, Arizona, and Colorado. My wife and I have an appointment for Monday 1/11/2021 to get our first vaccination shot. I think then the second shot is a month away (or thereabouts) for the 95% protection. We are senior citizens, so came in the queue after the health workers and the old people in nursing homes. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, the similarity is eerie! I'm glad to hear you'll be getting the vaccine soon. Best of luck! I can't wait for all of this to go back to normal. Edge3 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK review of City of Champaign v. Madigan
Hi. I've reviewed your article City of Champaign v. Madigan for DYK and it looks good to me. I thought I remembered some template for telling you this but now it looks this is only if articles are not fully approved. And I don't like talking templatese anyway. I've raised a side issue about copying your own text but I don't think that impinges on DYK. Belatedly I see you have nominated the article for WP:GA. I tried this once and nothing happened at all for months so I withdrew it, never to try again. So I hope you have better luck. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: Thanks so much! I've added the attribution template, as you suggested. You're quite right about GA... the system is set up to favor established editors who are patient and can keep busy with other articles while waiting. It's a shame that we can't find a more efficient solution. I'd be in favor of a quid pro quo reviewing scheme, but I'm in the minority on that point. I actually used to be an active GA reviewer several years ago, before I took a wikibreak. Since you seem to be an editor who sticks around for a while, it might not be a bad idea for you to throw an article or two into the GA queue. Edge3 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It won't surprise you to hear I'm soon going to nominate something to the DYK queue myself. And, if the past is a guide, it'll also have a good chance at OTD every year or so. So, I won't trouble GA! Thincat (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look at the 1868 bird's eye view of the Columbus image. It is 98 mb so might take a little time for it to load in your viewer( ~60 seconds +/-). You can zoom in real good once loaded because of the very high resolution. Notice the one horse buggy on Main St between Harrison St and Prairie St. When you zoom way in you can notice the driver's eye's are blue. --Doug Coldwell (talk)
Multiple issues
Dear Edge3, I notice that you've removed several tags at the article In Praise of Blood. This is premature. The article has multiple issues: sources that are not RS according to WP:RS; anonymous sources; questionable sources; misrepresented material; POV; factual errors; OR; undue weight; and so on. It needs guidance/input from neutral editors. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Saflieni: Hi! You're welcome to revert my change, at which point I'll discuss further, but I'd like to point out that I am indeed a "neutral" editor because I have no prior involvement in the article, and am acting in a reviewing capacity. Reviewers, by the very nature of our role, are neutral parties. Edge3 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you mind doing it? The editing of this article has been a volatile affair and I don't want to provoke anyone at this point. Saflieni (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Saflieni: Like I said, you're more than welcome to add the other tags back on the article. I'm not aware of any policy that's preventing you from doing so. Edge3 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for City of Champaign v. Madigan
On 18 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article City of Champaign v. Madigan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that City of Champaign v. Madigan was the first decision by an Illinois court addressing whether the private emails of government officials are subject to public disclosure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/City of Champaign v. Madigan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, City of Champaign v. Madigan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Barkeep49: It's a pleasure to meet you! Thanks so much for picking up the review. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring you today... I was very busy with some personal matters, and I spent the little time I had on Wikipedia working on edits related to the Biden inauguration. By the way, as a Chicagoan, I'm thrilled to see Wrigley Field on your list of articles you'd like to improve to GA! Edge3 (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article City of Champaign v. Madigan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:City of Champaign v. Madigan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Immensely sorry -- we were editing DYK prep 1 at the same time, and I got caught in the edit conflict. Would you like me to move the two I just added to a different prep? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Not a problem! Please feel free to proceed at prep 1. I think we might have space for one more bio and/or US article. (The article I'm currently promoting doesn't fall into either of those groups.) Edge3 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: I must confess that I didn't check the edit history of prep 1... otherwise I would have noticed that you had recently edited it! My apologies. I'm relatively new to the promotions process, and I noticed the backlog so I figured I'd help out. Is a prep usually owned entirely by one editor, or do multiple editors usually help promote? Edge3 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fairly new prep builder myself -- quite a few people have noticed the shrinking number of hands (although I've built a solid couple at this point). My image so far is the degree to which a given prep is collaborative tends to vary, especially depending on how many people are building preps in the first place. I have a tendency to get attached to one and build it up, but I've also filled in empty spaces on others. Mostly, I keep an eye on the edit history to see what other parties seem to be doing; something that's been sitting around for a few hours is almost certainly something where help would be appreciated. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, imo what you're doing (of making a couple at once, not trying to build a whole prep) is the best way when just starting out, so feel free to keep it up. I had to add to a couple first before I was comfortable building most of a prep or adding the image hook (images are a fairly common source of nominator/prep builder friction). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Thank you! I've just promoted a few to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2, but I'm done for now because I do have to step away for dinner. Please feel free to take a look and let me know if you have feedback for me, so that I can do it better next time. As for images, yeah I suspect that spot is quite a commodity, so I'm unsure of how to select one. Edge3 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks quite good so far (and I appreciate the promotion of one of my own hooks), but may require a bit of moving around -- it only has half a biography, and generally speaking you want bio and non-bio hooks to alternate, so when you add some bios you may want to move around current hooks to compensate. Also, there's a tendency not to have mood transitions be too jarring, so putting a technical medical hook just before the quirky spot is uncommon -- that might be moved too as you add more. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Yup, I'm aware. I just wanted to keep Empire updated, in case he or she wanted to recruit another editor to get involved. But the nomination has bee open for a while now, so I went ahead and closed it. Edge3 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prep 4
Hey, when Prep 5 opens, is it cool with you to move the NASCAR hooks you promoted there? I ask because Prep 4 will run on March 8th (International Women's Day), and an oddly high number of the hooks we have saved for then are sports-related. (I forgot to promote some day-related hooks myself, so you won't be the only one needing to move hooks to Prep 5 soon.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Hey! That sounds good to me. If I forget to do it, feel free to do it yourself. I had to turn in my laptop for repairs just a few hours ago, so I'll be less active on Wikipedia for the next several days anyway. Editing on my phone is much harder than I thought! ;-) But if I get to access Wikipedia on a proper computer, I should be able to help out. Edge3 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started the GA review for this article, but I just realized that you left a note that you would be willing to review the second nomination. If you have time, I feel like it would be easier for both of us if you took over the GA review from me. Please let me know what you think. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bait30: No worries! I've been super busy and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. I'm happy for you to proceed with the review. Are you able to finish it? It would be good for the article to get a second opinion anyway. Let me know if you have time constraints of your own, and I might be able to help. Edge3 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Brian Sicknick
On 7 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brian Sicknick, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick(pictured) wanted to pursue a career in law enforcement since high school, and joined the New Jersey Air National Guard "as a means to that end"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brian Sicknick. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Brian Sicknick), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Cbl62: That's great news! Thanks for letting me know. It's also quite timely, as the article just earned GA status! Hopefully this shows that we are providing a lot of value to our readers, especially on this important man. Edge3 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for copy-editing Yoninah's entry. I am VERY reluctant to single out individual statements of missing and condolence, while the complete list is such an overwhelming testimonial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Many readers of the Signpost might not read the entirety of Yoninah's talkpage thread, and I still think it's helpful to summarize what people have said about her. I'll add some examples soon, and maybe we can discuss further as more editors get involved. Edge3 (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand, in this particular case, with so many and impossible to even mention them all, let alone quote, I feel like making an exception. Perhaps we can give a number, at least. I also see the posting as an invitation to post some more, and those coming late have the disadvantage from the start to not be quoted. As you and staff wish, of course, - I am new to this, and highly personally hit by her absence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a difficult topic to write about, for sure. I've been following the example of Flyer22 Frozen's obituary, but I understand that other editors may have preferences on how to move forward. Plus, the staff at the Signpost might have their own editorial preferences as well. Edge3 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Oh no! I'm really sad to hear that. You can submit a suggestion to the Signpost, where it will be reviewed by an editor in their newsroom. However, you'd want to do this quickly, since it seems that they're getting ready to publish by the end of this month. Edge3 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Actually, I don't share the same opinion as Yousef Raz. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut, I already stated that my preference is to merge into the primary event article. Yousef Raz appears to hold the position that lying in honor confers automatic notability. Those are two separate (and perhaps opposing) opinions.
Also note that on that AFD discussion for Chestnut, Love of Corey already pinged other editors that had chimed in on the William Evans discussion. It would have been redundant for me to ping them again. Yousef Raz commented on the Evans discussion after Love of Corey had pinged the other editors. My notification was merely an extension of those sent by Love of Corey.
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you sent this templated message. WP:APPNOTE states that notifications must be "neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion". That is precisely what I did. I notified Yousef Raz of the ongoing AFD, without encouraging that editor to adopt a certain position. Edge3 (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698: It was my pleasure to help out. Kathy Karpan is a fascinating individual, and I couldn't resist the opportunity to bring her article to GA status. I'm sorry to hear of your friend's death, and I totally understand your need to take time off to take care of yourself. Edge3 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fighter-jet escorts from dictatorship countries -
- are not there as 'guides' - the warning was clear, land or I shoot down the plane. C'mon. You know better than that. Take care.50.111.6.31 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Susan Catania 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 Ezlev -- Ezlev (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Susan Catania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Susan Catania for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ezlev -- Ezlev (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Susan Catania
On 17 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Susan Catania, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Susan Catania(pictured) shocked male legislators by bringing her infant daughter to the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives and nursing her baby in the women's restroom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Catania. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Susan Catania), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Theleekycauldron: Oh that's wonderful! Thanks for letting me know. There was some editing traffic on the article today as well. I suppose people took a lot of interest in her biography. Edge3 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Gerda Arendt: Great to hear from you! How have you been? I've stepped back from wiki life to focus on other hobbies, and work keeps me busy nowadays. But I still lurk on the wiki quite often and I think about articles I want to work on eventually. :) Edge3 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
