A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
I hope all is well with you, I know it's been awhile since we spoke last. I just wanted to let you know that I am back in action and now working on the list of this years Packers Rookies to get up to DYK status and get WP:WikiProject Green Bay Packers back up and going! If you need anything feel free to let me know and I look forward to working with you in the future.--ChurchTalk08:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Titletown District, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
I'm not sure if it would be of help, but you may want to look at Packers.com for some articles by Cliff Christl, who is the official team historian. I know for a fact somewhere he has articles explaining just how important the Packers Sweep was not only to the team, but the game itself.--ChurchTalk16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He probably belongs but I think the voters are reluctant to put yet another Lombardi-era Packers player in the Hall. What is there like, 15? Kramer would be the 3rd offensive lineman from that group, after Gregg and Ringo. He also only made 3 Pro Bowls; Gregg made 9 and Ringo 10. I know Pro Bowls aren't always the best metric (Ray Nitschke had only 1) but Kramer was literally sandwiched between perennial Pro Bowlers. That doesn't do him any favors in the eyes of voters. Lizard (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With Kramer's induction, the Sweep will be getting renewed media attention so I definitely think an article on it is warranted now. We'd have to figure out the WP:COMMONNAME though; I often see it called the "Lombardi Sweep" and "Packer Sweep." Lizard (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to begin expanding out the Title Town Section in your user space. I need something other than expanding player bios, something as big as this should be in article space too! --ChurchTalk20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in providing your input on the talk page regarding the inclusion of his relationship with Danica Patrick.--ChurchTalk11:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Hi, I was just thinking if it would be better to copy the content from the correctly titled Pramod Ranjan Choudhury to incorrectly titled Promode Ranjan Chaudhury, delete the correctly titled one and then move the incorrect one and its talk page to the correctly titled one. As the incorrect one has a much longer revision history (2007) whereas the correctly titled one was created November last year and per here. What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm glad you added a redirect instead of going ahead with the speedy delete as I think history merge would be better. They are both articles of the same person, just the one that already existed was misspelt and a newer page with the correctly spelled name was created. The 'move' function should have been used to rename a page as this will preserve the page history in one place, and then expanded on with references etc. Per here, a user posted on the creators talk page: "You have created a page parallel to the existing one, so your page qualifies to be deleted. Please integrate both pages." I think the user wanted the creator of the newer page to add additional information to the one that already exists, the newer one to then be deleted and then the existing one to be 'moved' to the correctly named title. Initially, after comparing the articles, I decided to copy over the infobox from the older one to the newer one. But if you look at the history of both pages, from the older one to the newer one, you can see its basically been expanded which is why I think a history merge makes sense, plus it makes things a bit more tidy. The creator of the newer one has told me that they were unaware that someone had already created it. However, the creator should have searched on Wikipedia first to see if there is a page that already exists or of similar title, but then again, I suppose with the incorrect name spelt, may be a problem. The text from both articles is pretty much the same too. What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine as is. There are two issues: maintaining page history and directing people to the right page. Deleting either page and moving the article will not preserve the deleted page's history. The templates on the page provide the necessary info to trace back the history. And the redirect directs people to the right page. Hope this makes sense, I think overall everything is good. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, for this situation, a history merge is appropriate as the page should have been moved rather than a new one created. The history of the incorrectly titled one would be added to the correctly titled one, and the old one will still remain as a redirect (as you can see with other history merges). Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Orphaned non-free image File:Rick Monday American Flag.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Rick Monday American Flag.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).
Brett Favre, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn(talk)22:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hi. Can you please adjust your sig. The '' which starts the italics doesn't have an ending pair, so the colored syntax coding of subsequent comments is thrown off when editing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can take a screenshot and post it here, probably tomorrow. Colored syntax coding only got upgraded from a Beta feature recently, and the problem does affect anything on the page as presented,only on the editing page, so it' easily overlooked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Here is my sig. What do I need to change it to?
Sorry, I thought I had replied to this, but it seems I didn't post the reply. What you did doesn't totally fix the problem, but I'll be darned if I know what to do to correct it. My advice would be not to worry about it, as the problem is very minor, and to apologize to you for bringing it up in the first place. It could easily be something wrong in the coding of syntax highlighting, and nothing that you're doing wrong at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Packers sweep has been completed.
The article is well-written and included nothing that would cause embarrassment during a GA review. You'll see that most of my edits involved tweaking wording and sentence flow, and breaking up longer sentences so they are shorter and easier-to-read. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Think we had an edit conflict. I separated project guidelines because as I think its best people understand this is about administration pages. This seem reasonable to you?--Moxy (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...to your point here [1]: what you say is true, but most templates affect what the reader sees in article space, and so sure, decisions need to be made about consistent presentation and so on. But this template is a tool seen by editors and those working on this or that page should be able to employ such tools as they wish. EEng23:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, I see your point but disagree. I agree that editors should be able to use any tools at their disposal, so long as they don't impact other editors, which is why gadgets and scripts are so widely used. A talk page template should have a purpose, and should not be added without a reason. An article that only gets 20 views a month isn't worth it, in my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 01:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I doubt we are going to agree with each other on this. My main concerns are talk page clutter, server performance, and large-scale addition of this template to talk pages. I strongly believe that there should be clear instructions on when this template is appropriate and I don't think it should be added just because it was posted at WP:ITN or WP:DYK. I also strongly believe that it should not be added indiscriminately to articles, as a few editors have clearly done. However, I respect that fact that a few editors disagree with me and find it useful. I would prefer to be done with it all though, and move on to other things. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I think most editors agree, that there shouldn't be "large-scale addition of this template to talk pages".
I agree, and I think most editors agree, that it shouldn't be added "just because it was posted at WP:ITN or WP:DYK".
I agree, and I think most editors agree, that it shouldn't be added "indiscriminately".
You mentioned server performance, and I've brought that up before – as a potential issue. But no one seems to know anything concrete about this. Do you? EEng01:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I don't know about server performance, just something I have heard regarding templates.
Regarding WP:CREEP, all I am looking for is something like the instructions at {{Talk header}} (i.e. "This template should be placed only where it's needed") so when an editor starts adding this template indiscriminately, there is something to point to. A simple explanation like this is most definitely WP:NOTCREEP.
There is currently an editor adding it to every talk page when they add {{Itn talk}}, which I think is very unnecessary. I saw one article today that average 100 views a month that had a three day bump because it was in the news, and then back to normal views. But after the past few discussions, I have nothing to point to that would show these types of additions are against consensus. So I'm not going to do anything and just ignore it until I run into the template again on an article I am editing. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 02:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've taken a look and to be honest I don't really see the problem. Subjects in the news have some likelihood of appearing in the news again, and increased attention does sometimes cause problems, so it's not useless to have that info easily available. At the rate he's going, in ten years he'll have added the template to 1/5 of 1% of all articles -- big deal. My two comments are: (1) I still wonder about performance, since this is probably one of the few templates that force (I'm guessing) a rerendering of the page, and a significant database query, on every distinct day that the talk page is accessed; (2) to draw attention to unexpected traffic, the normal show/hide mode should be show. EEng16:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. As I mentioned, I am probably going to focus on other things. I would be fine if all of this was behind us and we all moved on. If you would like my input on future improvements to the template, etc. please don't hesitate to contact me. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 10 years since Arby 'n' the Chief has held the protected status, preventing anyone but Administrators to create the article. The creator of the web series already developed 7 seasons plus another 8th season. There is also an issue of Machinima preventing visitors watching the episodes (making them Unlisted on their Youtube channel), having this information on the series's Wikipedia article will certainly be helpful.
Hi Aumars. Wow, that is a pretty old protection (10 years!). Since this article was deleted from an WP:AFD discussion, would you please create a draft (either at Draft:Arby 'n' the Chief or in your user space)? Since its been deleted so many times because of notability issues, I would like to review what is going to be created prior to unprotecting the article. That said, feel free to request at WP:RFPP for another admin to review if you disagree with my assessment; I wouldn't mind if an un-involved admin chose to unprotect it. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Thanks The Rambling Man! Glad it was well received and thank you again for the review. I think it is a great idea! However, I have received a lot of pushback from some editors regarding these shorter lists, specifically that they thought they were unnecessary as stand-alone lists. So tread carefully, lest someone AFD's it right away...
Thanks to the both of you! It was not easy and not necessarily an article I really wanted to edit, but the previous version (which lasted a long time!) was in rough shape.
Theroadislong, I understand why you did it, but I am not sure that I agree with the removal of the birth date. Although I appreciate the desire to appease the subject of the article, a birth date is not a controversial item and really is essential to biographies about living people. Is there some policy or guideline that covers responding to requested removals of this type of info? The only thing I see is WP:BLPEDIT, which states they need to explain the issue and really focuses on the "removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material", not benign issues like birthdates. I admittedly am not an expert in these issues, so if there is something I am missing, please let me know. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad replacement you just added to replace Dave Roller's wonderful information that you deleted. First of all, you have listed incorrect information. And what you added is not very informative or interesting to read. He was not born in Ohio and has never lived in Ohio.
Thank you for your time in attempting to rewrite Dave Roller's Wikipedia information. If that is all you feel is necessary to include for him, I will give him the disappointing information so he will stop referring his fan base to Wikipedia for information. Why use Wikipedia when all you included was basic information from other websites. I am very confused and disappointed. This comes as a surprise as I felt Wikipedia was of higher standards. The format that was used is the same format that I have seen on Wikipedia for other professional football players but their information has not been deleted.
Everything you deleted from Dave Roller's Wikipedia page is backed by newspaper articles and is verifiable information that I personally have read. Only problem is being 30 years old these articles have been archived and can no longer be linked to Wikipedia. And other statements that you deleted I have original pictures as proof to back up the facts. But I don't know about copyrights since most of the photographers are deceased and there is no one to contact. So, I did not upload the pictures.
I am just shocked that all the information you deleted has been on Wikipedia for 10+ years with no problem. I just don't understand. But, write what you want for I will not be editing his page anymore. We will just stop referring people to Wikipedia since the information is incorrect and sparse.
Again, thank you for at least taking time to attempt a rewrite.
Hi Mmm1313, first off, I appreciate the fact that you want this best for the article on Dave Roller. However, you seem to not fully grasp what Wikipedia is and how it works. Here are a few pages you should read about before further editing:
Content must be written in a neutral point of view and should stay focused on the subject's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.
There is a Manual of Style that explains how an article should be laid out, formatted, and written.
The version of the article you wrote is lacking in all of these issues. It is nothing personal, it is just the way we do things around here. There are very cheap alternatives to Wikipedia where you can write whatever you would like about Dave Roller.
All that said, if you would like to improve the article, here are a few ways:
Find and post reliable sources (you can use services like Newspapers.com to find old articles)
Upload a freely licensed image of Dave Roller for use in his article
Gonzo fan2007, you asked how I knew Dave Roller's feelings. He was standing behind me and expressed his feelings as I was typing. I dreaded reading him the comments and dreaded telling him that all the information he provided had been totally deleted. I feel that is Wikipedia and Wikipedia viewers loss, not his. He was a people's player and had a huge fan club at Green Bay. Vernon Biever was the president of his fan club. Since you state you are a Packer's fan you should know that Vernon was the photographer for the Packers. He just wanted his fans to know his football history and the information provided to Wikipedia was a wealth of information for all the fans that still follow him. He also had a fan club in the World Football League he was well liked because he interacted with the fans. But, that is okay, there are other ways he can provide such information to his fans.
Mr. Roller has extensive material, articles and photos that he provided which is proof but most are no longer available to link to online since the articles have been archived. I can give you names of the papers, dates, and headline of the articles but you would need access to various libraries, newspaper.com, and other historical resources to view them.
Personally, I do not like the new format because as a viewer, I prefer to have all the content in one place instead of having to click on numerous links. But, that is your required format so that is that. People will not take time to click on references. He has already been contacted asking why his Wikipedia information has been changed.
Mike McCoy's profile has a similar style of written material under his categories that Dave Roller used and there are no links.
Also Peyton Manning's information on Wikipedia is in the same format that Dave Roller used so I do not understand why Dave Roller's information was totally deleted and then given a different format. There is no consistence as to why one is deleted and the other is okay. I like Peyton Manning's format because it is very similar to the format used for Dave Roller original information.
Gonzo fan2007, below is a link to prove to you that Dave Roller was inducted to the University of Kentucky's Hall of Fame. I do not feel the links I am sending to you should be used only as references since the information has been deleted, by you, leaving nothing to be referenced. I feel his information should be restored under the categories you have added under Dave Roller
Below is the link to Kentucky's Hall of Fame about Dave Roller.
https://ukathletics.com/hof.aspx?hof=141
Mmm1313, those links are great and what we need for Wikipedia. I have expanded the article based on this info found in those links. See here. To be honest, I do not care if you are Dave Roller, if you are his relative, or if you are a friend. Unless there is libelous or blatantly untrue information in his article, his opinions on the matter have little to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has almost 6 million articles, with over 1.5 million of those on living people. Please, again reread the links I have posted above. These are the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, regardless of who you are or what article we are talking about. Note how the current version of the Dave Roller article is professionally written, backed up my reliable sources, and neutral.
If you find more links or sources, please feel free to write them here. If you can, please take a photo of Dave and upload it to Wikipedia. Photos make articles look great!
In regards to your comment about you "don't care if this is Dave Roller, a relative", etc. This is not Dave Roller but what I can confirm is, he is not happy. I will be sending you LOTS of links to you soon that you can reference in hopes you will be kind enough to add back a lot of the information deserving to be included from Dave Roller's initial information that was on Wikipedia since 2007. While efforts are appreciated in what has been constructed for his Wikipedia section it is boring to read unlike what has been allowed on other professional players like Mike McCoy, Reggie White, and Peyton Manning. Plus, as you know, stats for defensive players were not posted back when Dave played. Reggie and Peyton are more current players and were better known players but I am not talking about their accomplishments. I'm referring to the style their information is written. It is not basic facts after facts like Mr. Roller's rewrite. Their information was written more like what David's initial information was written but none of the editors on Wikipedia have deleted the style of content on Reggie White, Peyton Manning, or Mike McCoy. It would be nice if whomever is writing the information for Dave Roller would put a little life into their words. Everything that was written on Dave Roller's initial profile was all true information but the information being written now is very dull and boring. He hopes that whomever is doing the rewrite will incorporate his initial information back into his profile as it was written, as links are sent to prove the information is legit.
In one of the talk requests I posted I asked, on behalf of Dave Roller, to remove his Date of Birth. One of your writer's was kind enough to remove the information but I see it has been added back. Once again, please remove his birth date. He has also asked that any statements writers have made in regards to his health or the NFL litigation be removed. This is in violation of HIPAA standards for a living person. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Attn: Gonzo fan2007 or any other editor working on Dave Roller's profile:
In December of 1986 in Stan Torgerson article, "Time To Select 20 Years of SEC's Best", Kentucky's Dave Roller along with Georgia's Herschel Walker, Auburn's Bo Jackson and Archie Manning of Ole Miss were named to the list as the Best Seen Over the Past 20 Years.
Below is a link for proof of the above information originally written on Dave Roller's Wikipedia profile:
Sorry Mmm1313 but you seem to be making no effort to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. It is not a fan page; it is an Encyclopedia, a resource for factual information. The articles you linked are written professionally and are nothing like the version you had written about Dave Roller. WP:BLP says that articles should be written in a "disinterested tone".
Let me make this as clear as possible: The version of Dave Roller that previously existed will never be restored.
Sorry do not know why my new section was attached to this one so it has hopefully been deleted and entered in a new section.
Mmm1313
Dave Roller links
Gonzo fan2007, I do understand exactly what Wikipedia is about. I also understand you are trying to do your best to update Mr. Roller's profile and for that I am appreciative for your efforts. What I do not understand is the reason for the difference in the rewrite style for Mr. Roller vs others that are similar in style of his prior profile. My prior questions were never about what was written in his prior profile information it was the difference in style of writing. Why others have one style on Wikipedia and his rewrite has a different style. But, that does not matter, I guess, so let's move forward with what you and others are doing for Mr. Roller. I have a book to finish and other clients to deal with. No, I am not charging Mr. Roller just trying to help him with the information. I thought Wikipedia welcomed information updates and edits. So, let's move forward because I need to wrap this up as quickly as possible.
If you no longer prefer that I send you additional reference links for Mr. Roller, please let me know and offer options of contacts at Wikipedia that I can forward the links to. I could not care less if his prior information since 2007 is ever used again. At this point my only reason for continuance with this is to help Wikipedia gather factual information about Mr. Roller.
I will send a few links at a time to you over the next few days, if that is okay. I will refer to his old information only to show I am sending verification of information used in his old profile. Also to indicate the reason for each reference link. So, please do not think I am sending the old information for any other reason. Below, please find additional links for Mr. Roller:
Roller played college football for the University of Kentucky Wildcats from 1967-1970.
Played on the University Freshman team in 1967 - no link for that year. I will continue to search or perhaps you can find one.
Dave Roller National and SEC Lineman of the Week in 1970
Attn: Gonso fan2007
Additional reference links for Dave Roller
David was voted National Defensive Lineman of the Week and SEC Defensive Lineman of the week against Kansas State his senior year at the University of Kentucky in 1970. During his performance David Roller had 17 unassisted tackles and six assists, leaving the top-13 ranked Kansas State offense with negative 93 yards rushing. He also had six sacks on Kansas State Quarterback Lynn Dickey during this game.
The article below also mentions that he received Kentucky Central Trophy as the Most Valuable Player among underclassmen, as mentioned in his original profile.
Hey man! First off, thank you so much for taking the time to start the GA review for the 2017–18 Jamshedpur FC season. I have been waiting for a long time for this. Also, yes, I have seen your message. Sorry I didn't respond earlier but I did not have time to do so properly. I will look over what you said tonight and tomorrow. Thank you once again so much! Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Packers sweep 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 Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Green Bay Packers Foundation 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 Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you restore deleted revisions of Alex Light? I created the article yesterday so it should be my username in the first revision and not the editors of previous revisions. Flooded with them hundreds06:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flooded with them hundreds, because you immediately recreated a recently deleted article (like 2 hours after it was deleted). If you disagreed with the WP:PROD, you are supposed to remove the tag and improve the article, not let it get deleted and then immediately recreate it. Also, why does it matter??? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated it after searching on Google for coverage but I didn't know the page before deletion was about the footballer. I thought it was just a redirect about an electronic musician. I only created the page because I wanted to be properly attributed as the article creator but now I no longer appear as the creator because you've restored previous revisions baselessly. Appearing as the page creator is important to me as it makes keeping track of my created pages much easier and it serves as a motivator for me to write articles. Admins selectively deleting/restoring revisions for no reason is extremely discouraging for content creators. Flooded with them hundreds10:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way. Regardless of what you think, you did not create the article, you recreated it. Prior to your recreation, the article already had a substantial page history. Because it was a WP:PROD (and not an WP:AFD), you're recreation of the article just 2 hours later was in essence "contesting the Prod", which means the page history needs to be retained. Especially since I immediately nominated it at WP:AFD. Everyone there needs to see the page history, including my addition of the Prod. Note that WP:PROD specifically states An administrator may decide on their own to restore a page that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion. That is what I did. So it was not "baseless" or "selective deleting/restoring" as you so carelessly charged.
Also, literally no one cares about being the first revision on a page. Wikipedia has almost 6 million articles and unless you plan on going for a WP:4AWARD, being the first revision has absolutely no benefits. If you want to be recognized for real contributions, make the article better by taking it to WP:DYK, WP:GA, or WP:FA! « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Thanks Barkeep49. I just don't think it is as notable in American football. It also doesn't seem to be discussed as a group in reliable sources. It is more a matter of fact that is grouped together because of a common theme. There are also issue (that can be fixed) like the restriction to "current" players. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo fan2007, the QPQ you requested in your review of this nomination has been provided; they tried to ping you, but forgot to sign their post, which prevented the ping from working. Please stop by when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dave Roller, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Green Bay Packers defensive tackle Dave Roller, who weighed 270 pounds (120 kg) at the time, was carried off Lambeau Field by fans after a victory against the Detroit Lions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Roller. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dave Roller), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Gerda Arendt, you just need to follow the directions at Wikipedia:Four Award#Nominations. The nomination template makes reviewing the article much easier because all of the links are provided for the relevant reviews. Let me know if you have any questions. After you nominate them myself or any of the other reviewers will assess the articles. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Hello, Gonzo fan2007. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
If you'd like to have a bash at reviewing Kevin Beattie, which is up at FAC, that'd be great. It's an interesting and somewhat sad story. Don't worry if you don't know too much about soccer, that's actually useful. And please be as annoying as I was. We're here to make it better. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!09:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JoeHebda, the archive bot looks at each discussion under a == Heading ==. It then looks at the timestamp of the most recent comment under that heading to determine when to archive the section. Thus any comment should, in theory, prevent archiving. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ray Evrard 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 Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
