Hi UCLAgirl623! Thanks for your email. Usually if the topic doesn't necessitate any level of secrecy, I like to keep Wikipedia-related communications on-wiki. Regarding your question about Datone Jones, I would be happy to help you out in reviewing the article! Could you open a second peer review at Talk:Datone Jones so that we have a central place to discuss improvements on the page? After a quick review of the article, it looks like you have a solid article that's close to WP:GA-level. Note that I already added archive links to some of the citations and cleaned up the talk page templates. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
I have WP:FOUR on my watchlist but don't look at changes very often. I just saw all the work you did there and I thought what a brilliant idea! It looks fantastic and you've made the process make more sense. Here's a barnstar to thank you! — Wug·a·po·des01:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for you. I see you created Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers/Popular pages which I think is terrific. I agree that such a list is more useful in monitoring page views than putting "annual readership" on ever talk page. Is it possible to create such a list for Michigan Wolverines football, for example, covering every article in the master category "Michigan Wolverines football"? Such a list would be tremendously useful and may obviate my desire to add "annual readership" to many of these talk pages. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I honestly haven't had many negative interactions on Wikipedia, and have welcomed hundreds of new editors, so I cordially disagree with your assessment of me. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Willard Ryan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Willard Ryan was the first head coach of the Green Bay Packers, even though the team claims that Curly Lambeau was actually the first? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Willard Ryan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Willard Ryan), 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.
I made a very minor correction in your close; nothing in your rationale, which was great, but rather, the result wasn't technically a "keep" as that would've meant the Head of the household redirect remained targeted to the same target. Although the disambiguation page had already been started, and we can definitely work on improving it, adding additional links and the like, as I understand it, it's quite common for editors to draft dab pages below the redirect to assist the closer, should the RfD close as disambiguate.
Anyway, great close, but just thought I should reach out. :-)
Hello fellow editor. I left a (somewhat long) response to your proposal to delete the listing on the list talk page. In quick summary, I am not necessarily opposed to deletion, but also fear the loss of what made Favre who he is...and that is his many accomplishments reported heavily in the media over the years. Maybe there is a way out of my concerns of notable things that have historically reported on as notable (whatever notable is supposed to mean by whatever standard is determined to be....a constantly evolving thing perhaps). Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stylteralmaldo, I will respond there to keep the discussion centralized. That said, I hope you know that the deletion proposal was not meant to be personal. I actually created the list many, many years ago, so it is actually an AFD for my own article. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Willie Wood Packers.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Willie Wood Packers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
(If you don't mind, I prefer to discuss personal matters on user talk pages, so as not to distract others.) I often prefer to open a discussion before making an assumption about what would be a better solution. In this case, I still believe the best solution is not to include the template at all because I think it creates confusion, but I was willing to compromise, as I think we should all try to be, right? I think we just have different styles, but I will consider greater use of "bold–refine" before opening discussion. WP:BRD also says that an editor who extends to another the offer of allowing him or her to implement a change "shows deference and respect". I was trying to thank you for that, but either I failed to adequately communicate my tone, or perhaps you weren't in the mind to receive the message. I regret whichever it may be. --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr, thanks for the message. I let my frustrations with the past discussions related to WP:TPL get the best of me; my apologies for that. I will try to be more understanding of the desire to discuss edits prior to implementation. I don't have a strong opinion about the template either way, I just think since consensus was pretty strong that this is an information page, there is a little more leeway to provide examples as they pop up. I agree that your placement makes more sense than the original placement. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking over some tags, and noticed that you created the "New Redirect" tag in January, what was it for? It doesn't seem to be actively used, and appears to be redundant to mw-new-redirect, which is defined by the software. ~ Amory(u • t • c)00:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
What the Packers' website says shouldn't matter. According to the way "league championships' are tabulated on Wikipedia, the Packers have fifteen. The Jets article says that the Jets have won two league championships, despite both of them being in the same year. Shouldn't all the NFL team articles be consistent? The Jets, Colts, Vikings, Chiefs, and Raiders articles all include their AFL/NFL championships in the years from 1966-1969. Either this article should be changed, or the other five articles should be changed.Politician818 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the term is "league championships," which is different than what the Packers site means by "championship seasons." Wikipedia considers the Packers to have won two championships in 1966, as well as 1967. Therefore, the Packers have had thirteen "championship seasons" but still fifteen championships, according to Wikipedia.Politician818 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you refuse to budge on this, then you have an obligation to try to change the other five team articles that I mentioned. There should be an official Wikipedia discussion about how to calculate championships so that all the articles are consistent.Politician818 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Politician818. The infobox of the Green Bay Packers correctly notes that the Packers have won 13 League Championships. The text "League Championships" links to History of the National Football League championship; if you scroll down to the NFL championships by franchise section, it again shows "13" for the number of League Championships for the Packers. Back to the infobox, that section correctly breaks down the specific type of championships: 11 pre-merger and 4 Super Bowls, with two of those coming in the same year. Meaning, again, the Packers have won 13 League Championships. This is supported by numerous sources in the article and infobox.
Although I appreciate your interest, this has been discussed a lot before and has been consistent like this for at least the last 14 years (the amount of time I have edited on Wikipedia). If you think you have a solid point and want to gather consensus to make a change, I recommend posting your concerns at the NFL WikiProject, although I will warn you that this has been discussed many times. At this point, if you continue to make the change and remove sources that are both verifiable and reliable, I will be forced to block you. Regarding the other teams, I have absolutely no obligation to edit any article as Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that the Packers have thirteen championships, but then the other articles should be consistent with this one. It frustrates me that people like you don't care about Wikipedia being consistent. You only care about the Packers article. I actually want the Packers, Jets, Raiders, Chiefs, Vikings, and Colts articles to all be consistent. Otherwise Wikipedia looks bad. If you care enough to edit this article, you should care enough about the other ones and let your voice be heard. There's also no need for you to be snarky.Politician818 (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only edited this article because I was fed up with constantly having my edits on the five other articles reverted, but now you're fighting me here. It would be nice if you'd help back me up on the Vikings, Colts, Chiefs, Raiders, and Jets articles. The Packers have thirteen titles, so that means the Vikings have zero, Colts have four, Chiefs have three (including a pre-merger AFL Championship in 1962 as the Dallas Texans), Raiders have three, and Jets have one.Politician818 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said that WP:V and WP:RS are the "most important." So then help me on the other five articles so that they're consistent with this one. My edits on those articles should NOT be reverted, nor should I be punished for being accurate. I'm currently being reverted and admonished by people on both sides of this issue.Politician818 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Packers article gives two sources for them having thirteen championships. One is a Green Bay newspaper. The other is the Packers' own site. However, when you go to the site, it lists BOTH their NFL Championship AND Super Bowl wins under 1966 and 1967. So although the Packers have had thirteen championship SEASONS, the Packers site can be interpreted to count both 1966 and 1967 TWICE, which would give them fifteen overall championships. It's not cut and dry. People can interpret it both ways. But again, if you're going to insist the Packers have only thirteen, then you should back me up on those other articles that I'm trying to change.Politician818 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Politician818. I can't stress this enough, but I have no interest in the articles you are bringing up. As I said above, if you have concerns about NFL-related articles, then you need to post your concerns at WT:NFL, where editors who are interested and experienced with these topics will be happy to provide you feedback. I would proposition though, that if you keep on getting reverted, it is because your position isn't correct. As such, I would recommend you move on to some other articles and forget about this. Believe me, Wikipedia will be just fine if you don't edit these articles. All that said, I would appreciate it if you stop editing my talk page. I will be glad to provide my two cents at WT:NFL, but continuing this discussion here will lead to nowhere. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instant Replay
Thanks for making my story "live." I wrote the entry over a year ago and it was rejected for reasons I didn't fully understand. I read the book a loooong time ago, felt it was significant and was surprised to see there was not an entry on it. I kept meaning to go back and try to figure out why it got rejected. I saw there were things in my mailbox, went in to it and found that you had published the entry. Thanks; I'm grateful for that. I've written two things for Wikipedia on wildly different subjects (Instant Replay and on the Nassau Interim Finance Authority) and would love to learn more about how the system works. Would you be willing to chat with me at <email struck>? I'd like to pick your brain on how the process operates. Many thanks. -- John Kingston — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayKay716 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JayKay716, thanks for reaching out. Regarding Instant Replay, sometimes Wikipedia isn't extremely forgiving for new editors, it can be a tough place to navigate if you aren't sure what you are doing. Your article just lacked some polish to make it more presentable.
I am happy to be a resource to answer questions about Wikipedia. That said, I prefer to keep Wikipedia conversations here, on the talk page, unless there is a need for privacy. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of my requests. I then went ahead and moved the User WikiProject page, and in classic bonehead way, changed "Redskins" in the title to "Football Team". Realizing my mistake, I moved the page again adding "Washington" to the title, see the edit history here. It seems this has created some double redirects, but not sure if they are causing any problems worth worrying about. I think I would need to edit the members user pages if I wanted to fix them, right? --DB1729 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DB1729, no problem. I deleted the misnamed template and I didn't see any incoming links, so we should be good. And yes, you would have to edit user's pages to replace the wikicode and remove the redirects. Probably not worth it, but you could always just leave a message on their talk page letting them know the template has been updated. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Caro7200, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections provides a little guidance, specifically Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. The whole article is only 6-7 sentences, so at this point adding section headers for one or two sentences seems excessive. Now if the article is expanded (maybe a paragraph each covering the background, the plot, the reception, etc), section headers would be more warranted. Hope that makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Orphaned non-free image File:Instant Replay Book Cover 2011 edition.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Instant Replay Book Cover 2011 edition.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).
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.
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
