@Moataz zintani: I'm not part of the Wikiproject that is responsible for publishing drafts, so while I'm not exactly qualified for this I can still move the page to the article space and publish it. However, Wikipedia policy requires that articles are written in clearly understood English and have properly formatted references, which are things that you seem to have a little bit of difficulty with, I'd love to help your draft in those areas if you'd like, just let me know. Cheers. Hecseur (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading `em the Cite Act
Poor Ivanvector has been drowned in my walls of text before, and taken it with remarkable poise. I'm sure he will survive. :) But you're right, so I'm replying here instead.
You say write I don't think there's any template that fits whats needed for cite act. Right now the citation links the url with both the number of the act and the date it was enacted, and I don't think there's any citation template that uses 2 parameters like that. There probably is, but not one that will much help you here, I don't think. But my point was rather that by using Module:Template wrapper as the basis you could get rid of all the code that deals with the parameters that are in common with other citation templates (like |access-date=) and thus make the code a lot easier to maintain. You can (I think) just as easily construct the URL from a pre-defined string and the values of two custom parameters, that are then passed on with Module:Template wrapper to the |url= parameter of something like {{cite web}}. You'd get all the standard functionality of those templates for "free", and be able to concentrate on just the stuff that's different in your use case.
Is there a prose description and examples anywhere of how {{cite act}} works and what it's used for? I mean the custom/unique parameters, what behaviour they trigger, and by what rules they construct the URL (if that's what it does). And what parts of the output's visual formatting is important (MoS-wise). Can you manually construct a, say, {{cite web}} invocation that will produce the desired output (just not with the convenience of the custom params)? No promises (see: "not an expert"), but if I understood how it worked I might be able to suggest some better implementation that's easier to maintain. --Xover (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New version using cite web (version 1):Annex; II; (P. 0029 - 0042); The approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs; Directive; No. 2000/13/EC; of 20 March 2000. "Retrieved 30 March 2015". {{cite web}}: External link in |author5=, |author6=, and |author7= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) It works by using |author1=, |author2=, |author3=, |author4= etc. as the fields in the order they appear. Hecseur (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. What is the style guide that governs how the output should look? For instance, what's wrong with the visual format of this:
"The approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs". Annex II: Directive No. 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000. pp. 29–42. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
Is it important what order the title ("The approximation …") and the formal designation ("Directive No. …") appear in? Does the page range have to be in the form "(P. 0029 - 0042)" or would "p. 29–42" do? Is it important that the title be in italics rather than quotation marks? Is it deliberate that the citation doesn't contain any actual author or publisher information (I presume it's "the EU" or something, and would normally be given for citations on Wikipedia)? There's two reasons I ask: first, the answers to these kinds of questions is what dermines how we can best do the technical stuff to achieve it; and the other is that there's a lot of stuff that's very untypical of how citations are normally formatted on Wikipedia. In most cases, Wikipedia's Manual of Style takes precedent over field-specific styles such as legal citations (there are other fields that have customary citation styles that are explicitly not adhered to on Wikipedia). The less of these special formatting rules based on an external style guide are needed, the easier it will be to implement the technical side (i.e. you can work with the infrastructure here rather than fight against it; and you'll run less risk of the community objecting to your citation style). --Xover (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: That is really good point. I definitely noticed that the template was very atypical, but instead of thinking "Hey maybe this shouldn't be like this", I jumped to "How can I make this stuff somehow work so the entire thing looks exactly the same it does now" even though the current way the template looks doesn't make an sense. This new example you gave is pretty great, I'd say (not that I'm an expert or anything). About the ordering, it should probably be "Annex II," and not "Annex II:" since it refers to an annex of the directive, not the other way around. Also and you could use |at= instead of |pages= so you have more options on how to type the page numbers. Overall I think the final thing should look something like this:
"The approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs". Annex II, Directive No. 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000. P. 0029 – 0042. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
I'm assuming that multiple fields can be used to make a single field in the module so |title= in {{cite book}} can get info from something like this: {{{article-type}}} {{{article}}}, {{{type}}} No. {{{number}}} of {{{date}}} If that can be done we still have a problem. How are we going to prevent any random gibberish of letters being inputted into |date= in the final citation template without causing an error message? This was part of the whole point of making it in the first place (together with making it not look like a giant disgusting pile of if statements), and I'm not sure how it can be implemented. Is there maybe a module specifically for dates? Or maybe you have another idea? Hecseur (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For page numbers, unless there are any special factors at work, I would strongly recommend using the Wikipedia MoS format, simply because I think that's the part of the citation that is most likely to get pushback if it looks different (easy to spot = easy to complain about). And so long as it's just a page range, the normal way of formatting it (i.e. "pp. 29–42") is clearer and easy to understand. And—and this is the point—if this template doesn't have to do anything special with page ranges, we don't have to write code for it (the CS1 module already has that). Then users of the template can use |pages= or |at=, or even a combination should that ever be needed (citing a footnote on a particular page for example). And which variant we prefer them to use is simply what we put in the template's documentation.
Another opportunity for dropping code and reducing complexity is |access-date=. An access date is normally only used for ephemeral sources, like a random web page. Sources that do not change, like books or laws, do not need one. When a law is changed it is replaced and the old one is still possible to cite; and a book gets a new edition that differentiates it. Style guides elsewhere tend to recommend "Retrieved at date" for anything that has an URL only because you can't as easily make that distincton in a paper medium (like a journal article). So unless the EU has particularly bad habits with their acts, the |access-date= shouldn't be needed (users of the template could still add it if they wanted, but the template doesn't need to deal with it).
{{{article-type}}} {{{article}}}, {{{type}}} No. {{{number}}} of {{{date}}} isn't generally hard to do. And we could probably also swing input validation for any of those params that are regular enough to be validated, but it might require us to get a little more fancy, technically speaking.
But as for |date=, handling that will take some more effort, and we might need to ask an actual expert for help. The CS1 modules deal with all sorts of date issues, but all of it is geared toward outputting it as a separate field in the final output. We'd want the CS1 module to deal with all the input validation etc., including formatting it, and then give it back to us so we can put it into the title. And the module as is just isn't designed to do that. I'll try to look into that, and maybe ask around for help over at Help talk:Citation Style 1. I'm confident it's a solveable problem, but the question is more how much validation can we get, how much functionality (like supporting input of multiple formats), and how much custom code is needed for it, etc. Getting the "right" solution to it might end up being more effort than it's worth (or it might turn out to be easy). --Xover (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover:I agree, and great idea asking around for an expert. I think |access-date= should be in the documentation since it helps out with dead URLs sometimes, but I'm getting ahead of myself. When it comes to date formats, not all of them should be supported, which introduces another issue. I mean that a date should either not be recognized, or converted if it's written like this 09-09-16, because "Directive No. 5 of 09-09-16" certainly isn't very aesthetic. That would mean that the template would have to have a default date format, which would probably be dmy but then there might be arguments from mdy users... Anyway, the |pages= and |at= is fine, I just thought |at= is better suited for this field since the way pages are numbered in acts can be odd, and |pages= will probably return errors, but that's, again, a documentation thing. For the mean time, I'm going to do some experimenting on Module:Template wrapper, see what I can learn about how it works and how we can use it, when it comes to dates though, I have no idea how to use those modules and they're way too complicated for me to understand, so hopefully we get some help from an expert. Hecseur (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: Just had an idea. I may be talking complete nonsense, since I don't know what I'm doing, but... Maybe instead of using a module for the dates we can just invoke Template:Date inside the invoking of Module:Template wrapper, specifically in the title field? I'm not exactly sure how that would work, but it seems like an easy way to do a complicated thing, since the errors are built into the template. Hecseur (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using {{Date}} is certainly an option. I would prefer to use CS1's date logic for various reasons, but if that doesn't pan out, Template:Date would probably do the trick. For using Module:Template wrapper you might take a look at {{cite Grove}}. It's a slightly different use case: it cites a specific encyclopedia, so what it does is force |publisher=Oxford University Press and the name of the editor etc., instead of combining inputs. But other than that it's a representative example. As you cann see, it's pretty simple to use for that use case. --Xover (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: I checked it out already, and am currently trying to understand how multiple combined inputs would work with it. I'll let you know if I make any progress. Hecseur (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: Well, Template:Date isn't going to work, it doesn't give errors, in spite of it saying that it does under certain circumstances, and even if it did, it would mess up formatting yada, yada, yada... So the only option is understanding IF Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation can be invoked to do things, and if it can, then HOW to use it to verify the date, if we can't do that, then I honestly have no idea how this could be done without manually writing an entire module for date verification. Hopefully we get some help from Help talk:Citation Style 1. Fortunately the rest of the template is actually really simple, I think I have it figured and I'm pretty sure I'm close to done on that part. Sorry to spam you with so many pings! Hecseur (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: You're probably asleep right now, but have fun having 4 different pings at the same time! Anyway, it is done! The code works (except for the date). You can see the code, and the output on my sandbox. I'm going to look into how the date could be done, though the only way I can think of is a Deus Ex Machina from CS1 Help talk. Hecseur (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: UPDATE: I got the date thing working, all you needed to do is add a <nowiki/> as the alternate of {{{date}}}. The main issue is that format of the date needs to be converted in a different way, if at all. A lot of cite acts don't have a full date but do have some other identifying number. Doing it the way it was will either cause every one of the year dates say that the day it was is today (in the case of a citation of 2016, it'd be 1 September 2016) or return a ton of errors that no one has time to fix. I'm trying to find a solution, ping me if you think of anything. Hecseur (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(on mobile, pardon the brevity). I’ve created a test suite at Template:cite act/testcases (also automatically linked at the bottom of the main template page). It lets you see various invocations and their output, and compare them to the non-sandbox version, without having to keep editing the template as such. -—Xover (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: HUGE SUCCESS! the template in Template:Cite act/sandbox works PERFECTLY! It knows when date formats are not either DMY, MDY, MY or just year (e.g. when you have a typo or forget a comma, or just enter a random mess of letters), and it can also see if the date makes sense, meaning, not in the future. The only case I can think of where there's a problem is that there wouldn't be an error if an |access-date= is set to a value before |date=, but I'm working on that right now. Now all we need is documentation, which we can probably use the current one since functionality isn't changing, and we're done! Hecseur (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: Update: I'm having some trouble with the |access-date= but I have some more ideas to try out. It's getting late though and I'm getting tired so I'll try and come up with a solution tomorrow. Feel free to find a solution if you've got ideas while my brain heals from the burnout. Also, sorry for pinging you so many times, if it annoys you let me know and I'll stop. Cheers. Hecseur (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you're figuring it out!
Regarding the testcases: they're something that matters, insofar as that they're a better way and you'll probably prefer it once you get used to it. BUT! I think you may have misunderstood what they're for. They're not like the sandbox where you make changes to the template code. The testcases are just a list of relevant invocations of the template with some helper code that makes it so you can see 1) the parameters used for the invocation, 2) the output from that the way it looks using the released version (Template:cite act), and 3) the output the way it looks using the current sandbox version (Template:Cite act/sandbox). The way you use it is to add a bunch of invocations with as many combinations of parameters (including invalid combinations and parameter values), and then you go fiddle with the code in the sandbox; and when you want to check how your changes worked, you go to the testcases and reload. It's most useful when you're making small incremental changes in the sandbox and want to make sure you haven't broken anything, but it's also great when doing major rewrites like you're doing here. There are whole software development methodologies built around this: Test-driven development. It's a good tool to work into your process. In any case, I saw you kept making changes to the demo invocation that's in the noinclude block in the sandbox to test your changes, so that's why I pointed you at the testcases page.
Regarding the date stuff: I think you're over-complicating things again. Adding a date in the future is a mistake people will make extremely rarely, and it's entirely possible that there are some edge cases where it's actually valid (an act may conceivably have an official date in the future, depending on the relevant legal system's practices), but the code to logic to detect and warn about it is adding a lot of complexity to the template code. It's not, in my opinion, a good tradeoff. In general, you should avoid trying to do logical validation (it's complex, prone to failure, and risks false positives in unforseen edge cases) and instead focus on syntacticalvalidation. "Is this date in one of the valid formats?", not "Does this otherwise valid date make sense?".
Regarding access dates: the issue has been discussed previously and there is community consensus that |access-date= is only for sources that are ephemereal: that can change from day to day. A typical example is a hobbyist web page that discusses, say, a prominent jurist's butterfly collection. If you write a Wikipedia article about that jurist and cite the web page, the hobbyist maintaining it might change it at any time such that it no longer supports the claims in the article. In these cases the access date tells you that the page supported the claim on that date (and helps find a relevant version on the Internet Archive or such places). A book, as the counter-example, does not change. Once it has been published it will continue to support the claims it supported on the day it was published. If a book is changed it gets published as a 2nd edition, and the edition number will tell you which version to consult. The same holds true for an act and similar documents: they do not change from day to day. It will continue to say what it said when published indefinitely. It may be superseded by another act, but it will not suddenly change to say that using arsenic in babyfood is a good idea. The act is probably available both on paper and electronically, and the URL for it may change for various reasons. But the URL is just a convenience; it doesn't affect what the act says. And if the URL changes, an access date does not help at all with finding the new URL. In other words, I think you should drop all code related to |access-date= and not rely on it for any logic; and not suggest its use in the template documentation.
On dates in general: You may want to consider whether it even makes sense to treat this as a date as such. Given the apparent large variation in valid values, it may actually be better to just treat it like an opaque text string. I'm not familiar enough with the range of values to be expected here, so I can't really assess it, but you may want to consider it.
@Xover: I completely agree with everything you said, I just have a tendency to over-complicate things. Taking a look in testcases does seem to be way more helpful and comfortable than constantly changing a reference in the noinclude are in the sandbox. Anyway, I'm gonna change the sandbox code so it works without checking when the date is (so it can be in the future), and instead just check that it's in a valid format. Hecseur (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mochalyshche, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hello, Hecseur. 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.
I really don't think that you should be correcting spelling, grammar, capitalisation errors etc in other people's posts as you did here and here. For the most part, people probably will not mind, but there is always a danger that the meaning might be inadvertently changed. Further, by cleaning up a contributor's post, you may be imbuing them with more credibility than they actually deserve. SpinningSpark16:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Yeah that's a fair point, I only did it because it pops up in red bold letters in WPCleaner and that kinda bothered me. I don't agree about your point on credibility, though. People tend to make grammar mistakes inadvertently, it's human to make mistakes, especially if English isn't your first language. Overall, I understand what you're getting at, I'll refrain from correcting these errors in the future. Hecseur (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox country is used indepent from time. Infobox settlement ("settlement" might be a misnomer, but the IB is used for anything below country level) is also used indepent of time, namely for former, current and proposed territorial entities that are not countries. It is inconsistent to have an additional "Infobox former subdivision". There is no such think for other classes, no Template:Infobox former airline, Template:Infobox former person. The only difference between current subdivision and former subdivision is that one would add variables when and why it was dissolved. All the other variables are the same.
@77.13.148.190: I do agree with you, there's no reason for there to be 2 templates for the same thing, but there's problems in executing a merge in the current form of the template. IB former subdivision still has specific parameters that don't apply to IB settlement, and as you'll see, the transclusions of IB former subdivision almost exclusively use them. They use predecessor and successor states/subdivisions, and use capitals, which are all absent from IB settlement as of right now, and I'm not sure if they should be there at all. IB former subdivision also highlights the subdivision's history, putting it first in the IB, which doesn't fit what IB settlement does. The reason IB former subdivision still exists is because it can't be merged into the amalgamation of subdivision and settlement that IB settlement is trying to be. There's a reason there's no IB former settlement, but IB former subdivision does exist. As long as IB settlement isn't split apart from this weird thing that it is, there's no way that IB former subdivision can be cleanly merged. Am I proposing IB settlement to be split, or that it should be split? No. I am saying that, in my opinion, a split is necessary if you ever want to merge the templates. Hecseur (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amazonite Page Collaboration
Hi Hecseur
174 Here. Seeing you are still interested in this mineral page. Attempting to verify the legitimacy of the picture listed with the following details, wondering your thoughts:
Amazonstone (microcline feldspar).
Origin: Brazil
Description = Green microcline feldspar (amazonite variety).
Source = the authors are owners
Date = created December 2005
Authors = Tom Epaminondas (mineral collector) and Eurico Zimbres (FGEL/UERJ)
Permission = Free for all use
That picture also bears the caption: "Photo of a turquoise mineral with beige microcline speckled within it"
If caption is accurate, the 'turquoise mineral' pictured is not specified and the beige is microcline, then this picture isn't a good example of amazonite. However the description indicates the green mineral is microcline, which could be true as well, but raises questions.
The Wikipedia page (and other websites) note that green feldspar from that region is doubtful in origin, however that statement is from a 1911 Britannica and a bit dated. Confusion remains about whether the original named specimens were in fact feldspar or something else. None the of the current journal citations listed make reference to any Brazilian amazonite, but that is not definitive.
One of the listed authors of this picture, T. Epaminondas, has a website still active at http://www.mineralcollectors.com.br/ which notes that he collects in Brazil and other countries as well. The same picture in question used on Wikipedia is listed on that website for "amazonite" as well, but there it lacks the "origin: Brazil" tag and the descriptions it seems to have picked up on the Wiki page. A message was sent to the currently listed e-mail at the Mineralcollectors website for any details and information about the origin of the mineral specimen pictured, no confirmation yet.
The other listed author, E. Zimbres, is on Wikipedia Commons and asked also about details for the photo on his talk page. Maybe you would be a better go-between in that area?
Perhaps plans for another headline picture of amazonite that has a more specific geographic origin are in order? You seem invested in making the page nice and presentable, maybe you could pick one out? :)
174.65.49.241 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@174.65.49.241: That is a a great catch on your part! The description is clearly lacking in confirmation the mineral pictured is indeed amazonite, and specification on its geographic origin. The image itself is very good, though, with a black background that highlights an unpolished amazonite mineral. I did some looking and in fact there are sources of amazonite in Brazil. Those should be mentioned in the article, although I've yet to find a good source for their exact location which isn't behind a paywall. Good job on finding contact info and contacting these people, if we can get them to confirm this is indeed amazonite, and we use information from them to expand the Wikimedia Commons description of the image, then it'd be just fine to leave this image as is. If we don't get a response in a few days, though, it'd be a good idea to change the image to something else.
UPDATE:
Zimbres photos may be an issue. There are at least 7 other photos with attribution or description problems flagged on his talk page, most of which seem unresolved there (some photos deleted from wikimedia). Maybe not unusual if for example, he is a high volume contributor, but worth noting. The specific geographic location and description of this particular sample is relevant here, since a significant portion of Brazil (with interesting geology) is not in the Amazon drainage basin anyway. Something more definitive is called for.
A good photo of Amazonite from a specific place in Brazil would be nice though, not necessarily as the headline picture but in the page somewhere. Kinda misleading to say from Brazil, name it amazonite and not explain the difference, given the common association.
Regarding Recent Edits to Amazonite Page:
Your attempt to change language to something "more encyclopedic" actually changed the meaning of the sentence, which is from a citation. The original brief passage (the old Britannica https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Amazon-stone) is indicating that they doubted whether green potassium feldspar would be found specifically in the amazon basin, presumably based on the geology. Lo and behold these hundred years later, amazonite has been found in places like south eastern brazil (minas gerais, for example), but not along amazon river. It was the source, not type, of the original stones (or any well documented ones since) that was in doubt. Keeping the original meaning of the text is important, not inserting a new interpretation or revision of the information by editing. Again according to Britannica and other sources (Mindat, Ostrooumov), the stones documented were amazonite, hence the chemical definition stated in the page, the source was in question.
Additonally, the next sentence, which lacks citation, you have tagged for clarification needed. Where is this sentence even from? There is some information on pg. 200 of the book cited in the next sentence (the Ostrooumov text)indicating there was jewelry artifacts in ancient Egyptian archaeological finds, however the language on the wiki page does not appear to be found in the Ostrooumov text. A page number for this citation would provide clarity, but was missing.
You have also inserted (some time ago) a 'when?' regarding a direct quote from this EB1911 source, later in the page, about "formerly obtained from...". Why not just say 'according to Britannica, XYZ?' It seems like you are quibbling with the Britannica info. If you question the legitimacy of the source, why not just do that instead of request individual clarifications? Regardless, given the discovery in late 18th century and 1911 date on that quote, the time frame seems readily determinable from the available information. You don't seem to hesitate including the date of publication of other citations, why not just use similar language? "Circa 1911..." or "According to a 1911 report..." etc.
Regarding yet another one of those clarification requests in the color section, the statement "from .00X and .0X" is a straightforward way to denote quantities in the range of parts per thousand and parts per hundred, respectively. This is to distinguish from minute impurities, often denoted in parts per million or parts per billion. It is verbatim the language from the citation and pretty self-explanatory. You could link to the existing wikipedia page for parts-per thousand notation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts-per_notation) or expand on that definition if you think it necessary, since that page explaining it is already there for anyone needing clarification. You could substitute the word 'quantities' for 'amounts,' or use 'concentrations' if you find the original language confusing.
Lastly, and apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but your editing of the language in the Color section again changed the meaning of the sentence cited there as well. Lead was referenced twice in the original sentence (lead and then PbO) and a comparison was being made (with the word 'even') suggesting a range of values. Your restructuring was not simply cosmetic. Suggest reverting to the original statement, which is again the language of the citation. Perhaps the passage in the Pivec paper will offer you other paraphrasing options.
Really suggest checking out the Ostrooumov 2016 citation, it has a comprehensive list of geographic distribution and generally a wealth of current information, as well as an in-depth discussion on the color. Apologies also for the wall of text.
Hello Hecseur. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), patent nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Orphaned non-free image File:Poonch Medical College logo 2020.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Poonch Medical College logo 2020.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.
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.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
