This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can now write all special letters in all African Wikipedia languages. This works in the desktop version. [1]
There is now a field called depicts on Commons. This is a way to show what is in a picture with the help of Wikidata. It is still in development. [2]
Some tools on Toolforge may break on or after 3 June because of database changes. Maintainers should update their tools to use the new schema. [3][4]
Problems
You will be able to read but not to edit Wikimedia Commons for 30 minutes on 19 June at 05:00 (UTC). This is to fix a hardware problem. [5]
Changes later this week
Some wikis have one tab for the visual editor and one tab for a wikitext editor. Others wikis just have one tab. If your wiki has two tabs, clicking a link to create a new page has always opened a wikitext editor. It will now open the editor you used the last time you edited. [6]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 May. It will be on all wikis from 6 May (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 5 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
(I think of the voice in the original radio series of The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy of Zaphod Beeblebrox), and if you are able to re-frame the material, fine - I simply was looking at the bulk of material that seemed to be a link to something, and the way it was done as spam - hey if you have a creative reformulation of an ext link that works for you and you dont feel youre promoting a spam operation - go for it JarrahTree14:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The resolution should be that ifWP:GNG can't be resolved, then it should be merged because it is specific to the software now. If at some point it no longer is, and WP:GNG isn't resolved at that point, then it makes sense to delete. My point wasn't that it can't be merged now; it was that it may not make sense in the future. As someone else pointed out, this is irrelevant (and I now agree). As such, would it be possible to undelete and merge, or at least revisit? I'm quite sure that this is the consensus as it stands.
If not, how would I be able to recover the text? The page is now gone, and I wasn't prepared, thinking there would be some kind of warning countdown. Thanks. --Jayden Black (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. When I closed this I was thinking of a merger but from the comments including yours it seemed like there was no clear reason to prefer a particular page. Do you want to have the text userfied? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Well, it would definitely be Drupal as it's a hosting system for Drupal sites. (Yes, there are plug-ins for other content management frameworks, but that's because they trick Aegir into thinking they're Drupal, when they're not. So these are hacks essentially.) Does this help? Do you need any other info? Sure, a dump of the main text area would be helpful. Thanks! --Jayden Black (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, MarginalCost Before accepting the G12 speedy deletion an administrator has to check that a) there is no clean version in the history, b) that all of the article content is copied and c) that the source is copyrighted. When checking c) I noticed an odd structure in the page that looked like a Wikipedia article and lo and behold there was "Source of the article: Wikipedia" at the bottom. I did check that that article wasn't copyrighted and found out it wasn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello - you just removed speedy delete tags from NLRP (disambiguation) and NICT (disambiguation). These pages (two of a number I'm dealing with) are redirects that point to pages which are not (or are no longer) disambiguation pages. I do not understand your edit summary suggestion "In this case, one can simply remove the template". These pages are useless orphans that ought to be deleted, and will go to AfD if you cannot undo your edits. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, Shhhnotsoloud. WP:CSD#G8 by its own text applies to a dependent page of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion which isn't the case for either redirect, and "useless orphans" isn't a speedy deletion reason. The reason for my edit summary is that I was thinking you were trying to fix the "redirect to a disambiguation page" text. I believe that WP:RFD would indeed be the correct place to request deletion, unless WP:CSD#G14 applies but I am not sure of that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
When you create a PDF from a page on the wiki this is now done by Proton. Before this we used Electron. It should look the same but work better. Both use Chromium. This is a different system from when you collect several articles into a book and make a PDF from them. [7][8]
The Flagged Revisions extension now uses the standard OOUI icons. There will be additional minor fixes for positioning in the next deployment. [9]
Bots and other scripts that do not set an identifiable User-Agent may find their requests strictly rate-limited until they identify themselves properly. [10]
Problems
Please check if the Flagged Revisions configuration on your wiki is as you expect (or as it was a few weeks ago). If not, please report it. [11]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 12 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
A tag has been placed on User talk:DannyS712/scripts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DannyS712 (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, we need a more defined closing statement besides "merge". The discussion favored merging but only the verified health information by doctors who actual examined him, not the armchair garbage, otherwise we're back to square one, and that AfD was for naught. When I took the issue to BLPN, I listed valid reasons for concern, and GreenMeansGo was kind enough to open the AfD. Can you please be more specific regarding what gets merged based on the concerns stated in the AfD discussion re: excluding the armchair diagnosis, or should we do something else because local consensus is not a wide enough swathe for community input like it was with the AfD. We shouldn't have to go through this all over again. AtsmeTalk📧00:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel like Jo-Jo's closure was very clear that only some of the information, not the speculation/gossip, should be merged. "there seems to be a consensus that some of the material should be covered somewhere". Jo-Jo - Thanks for the very verbose closure rationale. It's very helpful on controversial topics like this and I appreciate the depth of research you did in the closure.--v/r - TP01:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I see that now. Jo-Jo, we made need to ask that you be more explicit on that point if it was your intent.--v/r - TP01:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, @Atsme and TParis:. To be honest, I am not sure if amending the closing statement would help in this regard; whatever I say there would not necessarily be binding on editors of Donald Trump as that page has its own discussion page, its own consensus finding process, and its own special rule
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Donald Trump is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article:
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.
These restrictions have been imposed pursuant to an arbitration decision, which authorized discretionary sanctions for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. Please edit carefully.
Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures:
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
so stuff is a lot more up to debate than in other mergers.
That said, given that some of the concerns in the discussion included speculation/gossiping and questionable medical information and were fairly widely shared, I'll put in a comment about what editors should consider when copying over stuff. Maybe that'll help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Good morning, Jo-Jo. About 1-1/2 yrs. ago, Aircorn and I were working on a proposal to help bring clarity and eliminate the ambiguities involved in AfDs that end in merge. I'm of the mind that AfD discussions resulting in merge should clearly state what parts of the article should be merged, if there should be a redirect, etc., with emphasis on the reasons an article was an AfD nom in the first place. The latter is the part that causes confusion in many AfD-Merge discussions, which somehow get reduced to merge discussions instead of delete discussions, primarily because consensus assumes the contentious material will be eliminated, as with the article in question wherein PAGs supported deletion of noncompliant material - it just needs to be stated more clearly.
You provided a very well thought out close, Jo-Jo, and it would prove helpful if, for the sake of clarity, you would condense it and include the parts that should be deleted as noncompliant with WP:PAG which was an integral part of the discussion; i.e. merge without the noncompliant/contentious material. We need a paragraph that clearly, succinctly and unambiguously states only the prevailing arguments in the iVotes. To kick it back to the article TP for editors to fight it out makes the AfD appear to be a waste of the community's time, especially considering the AfD was an action that resulted from a BLPN discussion - there were issues in the article that do not need to be repeated. Yes, there are DS in place at the article but that's why we need clarity of the close because without it, editors typically become frustrated having to argue the same points over and over again (BLPN & then AfD) with a smaller faction of the same editors that participated at the other discussions. It's easy to lose patience under such circumstances, and that's what leads to good editors getting t-banned or blocked when it all should have been resolved at AfD. Just my nickel's worth. Perhaps TParis has a different view. AtsmeTalk📧13:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see with your request is that AFD is a "should this page exist separately?" discussion rather than a "what stuff can be saved into another article" one and thus not really a good place to hammer out what part of the content of Health of Donald Trump belongs into Donald Trump; as noted under e.g WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NPOVFACT the what is appropriate for an article may not be appropriate for a section in another article and vice versa. Further, as people have noted on Talk:Donald Trump the AFD cannot really mandate that they accept (or not) particular content into the Trump article. I've written Also anything overly trivial, gossipy or based on armchair analysis as these are the things that have raised concerns in the discussion. on the Trump talk page to cover some of the material that should probably be left off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Perfect. It brings clarity, and at the very least, food for thought when performing the merge. I have no issue with the inclusion of a report from a doctor who performed the actual exam that was responsibly published in a RS. I'm of the mind that it covers us regarding any privacy issues. I also have no issue with including brief mention per DUE regarding the armchair reports (fringy gossip/detractors/opposition opinions) as it was highly publicized, but then again, is it really encyclopedic and does it have lasting vaue? Do we remember any of the other mudslinging among candidates and their detractors from years past? Ha!! I hope editors will propose a paragraph for inclusion in an RfC at the article TP so we can provide input and reach a healthy consensus. Bottomline, you did an excellent job closing that AfD. Most admins try to avoid AP2 like the plague! Kudos to you!! AtsmeTalk📧19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
deleted page
Hello,
I was wondering why did you removed a page called 'Flashbacks (Contemplate EP)'? Because information about this EP can be found on the internet and the songs are on every store, streaming platforms etc.
Greetings, Scothaddam. Courtesy link. I've restored it as it wasn't meeting the WP:CSD#A9 criteria, but I'd like to note that Because information about this EP can be found on the internet and the songs are on every store, streaming platforms etc. is not sufficient cause to have an article on a topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
You will be able to read but not to edit Wikimedia Commons for 30 minutes on 19 June at 05:00 (UTC). This is to fix a hardware problem. [12]
Changes later this week
MIDI files can soon be played without the Score extension. You can then add them with [[File:Filename.midi]]. Later override_midi and override_audio will stop working. Instead you will need to add the MIDI file below the music score. [13]
A new video player will soon replace the old one. You will be able to enable it as a beta feature in your preferences. It will later be enabled for everyone if there are no big problems. [14]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 June. It will be on all wikis from 20 June (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Some gadgets and user scripts still use the old wgEnableAPI and wgEnableWriteAPI values. These values are always true. They will soon be removed. This might break the gadgets and scripts. You should fix your gadgets to not use these values. [15]
@Kudpung:Thanks. I was wondering myself if one should simply let these things get auto-archived or whether closing them once one has received enough input - and it seems like this ORCP did give good advice and observations - is the better approach. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Tutupaca article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 16, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 16, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
The new version of MediaWiki for last week was not fully released due to issues. It was removed from most wikis on Tuesday and from test wikis on Thursday. [16]
Most wikis were slow and then briefly read-only last week due to one of the database servers having a problem. It is now replaced. [17]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 June. It will be on all wikis from 27 June (calendar).
Meetings
You can watch or join the next Wikimedia Language showcase. It will be about the usage of Machine Translation in Wikimedia projects. The showcase will be on 26 June at 13:00 (UTC). A recording will be kept for later viewing
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 26 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
On 29 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hells Bells (cave formations), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hells Bells grow underwater in a cave in Mexico? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hells Bells (cave formations)), 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 noticed that when you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hudson_Greene, you mentioned that "It seems like the sourcing presented by Andrew Davidson has convinced most editors." Did you account for the fact that four of the five "Keep" !votes (excluding A. Davidson's) are from Article Rescue Squadron participants who showed up after it was posted there by A. Davidson, creating a possible canvassing situation? –dlthewave☎17:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I did see this, but I also noticed that while Davidson's post was made on the 20th, most of the keeps came over the next few days even though the editors in question have been steadily active without noticeable breaks. To me this sounded more like organic keep !votes rather than those that a canvass would produce. In addition, even if I discounted them it would only suffice for a "no consensus" as Rusf10's rebuttal and Andrew's counter-assertion look more like reasoned disagreement about whether the sources are SIGCOV rather than a one-side-right-the-other-wrong case to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not going to argue the point, since it wouldn't really change the outcome. I'm just trying to gauge whether or not closers notice when most of the votes come from ARS members after being listed there. –dlthewave☎12:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, apparently the Eric Records page was never reviewed and was flagged as a possible copyvio on new pages patrol - I went through and made sure it wasn't, but then I prodded the article since I thought it was a clear WP:NORG failure based on looking through the possible copyvio sites and through a WP:BEFORE search. I didn't check to see if it had been sent to AfD since I figured it was a new article so I removed the prod. I think you got the close correct, but I don't see anything there which covers the company significantly either apart from one article (and a bunch of advertisements for Paul Anka's music.) Just wondering if you think this article should go a whole year before being renominated. SportingFlyerT·C06:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. This was the state of the discussion before closure (for some reason linking directly to the AFD page does hide all its content); I am not really familiar enough with most of these sources to judge their appropriateness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Russell A. Alger deletion proposal
Thanks! I was about to redo as a PROD but decided to check another source to try to get cancellation date and details. It turns out the source given in the piece, another of my good sources, blundered (rarely, but just as DANFS and others blunders do happen). The "article" is unlikely to go beyond stub status, but the ship did exist. I will fix that even though for such stubs of mass produced or naval class ships I'd much prefer to see an expanded list form such as the Empire Ships list. 71.178.17.34 (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a courtesy post in case you noticed that I'd speedied this despite the "Keep" at AFD. The article was then correctly tagged as a copyright violation, and I deleted on that basis. Although attributed quotation, typically to a max of 10%, is permitted for illustrative purposes, in this case the bulk of the text was copied, so no choice really Jimfbleak - talk to me?12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Interstellarity and Jimfbleak: Begging pardon, but according to the deletion discussion there was a salvageable version. G12 only applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The development of Wikidata Bridge has started. The goal is to allow Wikidata edits from Wikipedia. [18]
Problems
Sometimes pages load slowly for users routed to the Amsterdam data center. Investigation is in progress. [19]
Wikidata query service was overloaded between 11:50 UTC until 13:15 UTC on June 24. It has been fixed. [20]
Changes later this week
You will be able to read but not to edit all wikis for a short amount of time, on 3 July at 06:00 (UTC). This is to move a database. [21]
There is no deployment of a new version of MediaWiki on the wikis this week (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 3 July at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hi Jo-Jo--I hope you can do me a small favor. I'm reviewing this nomination, but it's pretty technical. Really, I need an expert to look at a few things--is the hook properly verified? (The language in those sources is very technical, and I cannot access one of them.) Is the article content in reasonable condition, is anything important missing, etc.? It's not a GA nomination, but still, we don't want to look like fools, and I shouldn't sign off on that one until I am more certain of the content. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. The hook shouldn't say "unusual" as we don't really say that in such a context, should perhaps say "recent" as in the Miocene-Pliocene there surely were volcanoes there. Ramos does say that there are no volcanoes in the gap and the rest of the text seems reasonable to me (disclaimer: I have not done any detailed source-text comparison). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
