User talk:Shereth

If you are here because I have deleted your article or I have blocked you from editing please click here before emailing me or leaving a message on my talk page.
Messages left on this talk page will be responded to on this talk page. I do not use the {{talkback}} template, so you may wish to watchlist this page while we have an active conversation to ensure you are notified of responses.
Talk Page Archives

I am seeking any info I can find regarding a Virginia Anderson (Father: Charles; Mother:Pearl), who would have been born in 1931 and would have spent at least part of her childhood in/near Salem. Anything you could find out for me would be greatly appreciated.

Thomas Pickrel Silver Spring, MD

US location project

Answered there:

Out of the Blue (Yale University)

Hi Shereth,

I wanted to address the deletion for Out of the Blue, an a cappella group at Yale University. Our previous page was located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Blue_(Yale_University)

You had said that we were not notable enough (among other things), but since writing back in 2009 the group has generated a significant amount of attention and expanded its reach, specifically:

International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella:

- Finalists in the ICCA Competition in 2012, the Northeast Champions - Best Choreography Award at Quarterfinals - Best Arrangement Award at Semifinals

ICCA info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Championship_of_Collegiate_A_Cappella Results info: http://www.varsityvocals.com/acappella-results-previous.html#2012

Contemporary A Cappella Recording Awards 2012:

- Nominated for "Best Mixed Collegiate Arrangement"

Link: http://www.casa.org/cara2012n

A Cappella Armageddon Competition (Fall 2011):

- 3rd Place Finalists

Link: http://bristolstudios.com/armageddon/armageddon2011finals/

Bijou Blender Competition (Nov 2011):

- 2n Place Finalists - Best Soloist Award (Sana Sharma)

Link to competition info: http://northhaven.patch.com/events/the-bijou-blender-an-acappella-extravaganza-4de376f6 More info: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Collegiate-a-cappella-groups-in-Bridgeport-for-2258934.php

Released Brand New Walk, the group's first-ever EP:

Review: http://acappellablog.com/cdreviews/cd-review-yale-out-blue-brand-new-walk

Released a full-length album in 2011, 16 Edgewood, reviewed here:

http://rarb.org/reviews/1169.html# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.154.133 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded presence on YouTube and Facebook, including:

- Tens of thousands of views on YouTube (Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIlY9bhPKbI&lc=tpJZXbCSlO4U7naMcNKETuj8or4q4Ix4IIlduND-9Xk&lch=email&feature=em-comment_received) - Over 1,000 likes on Facebook, most new - Nominated as one of the "Ten Can't-Miss American Collegiate A Cappella Groups of 2012" by A Cappella Blog

Traveled to Singapore, Brazil, and Montreal in 2011-2012.

Performed for dignitaries such as:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice (Picture: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151232777315909&set=pb.27645915908.-2207520000.1355529622&type=3&theater)

Aung San Suu Kyi, Human Rights Activist

David Adelman, U.S. Ambassador to Singapore (Picture: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150741817785909&set=a.10150741811995909.426203.27645915908&type=3&theater)

In addition, we find that other groups at Yale with a similar or weaker (/less publicized) profile maintain wiki pages. This includes groups such as Redhot & Blue (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redhot_%26_Blue_(musical_group))

We would love to have your reconsideration and believe that our extensive success on the collegiate a cappella circuit, notable performances, international travel, and longevity (25 years+), will allow us to be a relevant page.

Best,

128.36.154.133 (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Tom (OOTB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.154.133 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US maps

File:Maricopa County Incorporated and Planning areas Phoenix highlighted.svg is an absolutely brilliant map which I'd like to see replicated for everywhere.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: map update for 2010 census

Archived discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion is now located at Village pump.

I just saw, following my proposal along those lines, your comment on Ixnay's talk page late last year, which came a month or so after I asked you about that. Because you're no longer particularly active, I presume this isn't something you'd continue to like to take on yourself, but please let me know if you're planning to so that I don't accidentally do it for you.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Actually, not too long ago I put some effort into just this sort of thing. I already have the script written and it is capable of generating all of the maps we need; the effort got stalled when I tried to get some input from other editors with regards to map standards such as colors and content. If there is still some interest in this sort of thing I'd be happy to fire it back up. Feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/US_locations and let me know what you think. Shereth 15:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend coming up with a color for unincorporated areas, as well as standardizing the map projection, but those conventions otherwise look great! At least two Wikipedians have expressed interest in this... which doesn't make it sound important, until you consider that the older maps are blatantly outdated and often completely incorrect, which is a problem. 'Tis a shame I can't do it myself.  — TORTOISEWRATH 16:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't personally like the look of adding roads to the maps; this draws attention away from the cities. See: KISS principle.  — TORTOISEWRATH 16:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am largely in agreement with you regarding the roads, but I guess that's part of what stalled things before; when you only have the input of one or two editors it's hard to really get any kind of useful consensus. If you want to nudge a few other folks in the direction of the page I linked you and spark up a little discussion, I don't think it'd take much work to settle on a finalized set of conventions and go ahead and generate the maps. For what it is worth, there is a standard for projections; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/US_locations/Technical_specifications, linked on the earlier page, if you hadn't already. Shereth 16:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't seen that. The WPM specifications for location and locator maps both use equirectangular projections, which seems odd to me, but I'd been going with it. Of course, equirectangular projections can reduce SVG filesize (as one could use h2 or something for boundaries along, say, the 49th parallel). Also, I don't know if this is covered in the above specification, but including a mini-map of the state, as had been done before, is a good idea.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See File:Baldwin_County,_Alabama,_Daphne_highlighted_(2012).svg for an example of the maps I'd been working on, which are in the same style as the old ones. I haven't gotten my script to align the state beautifully as you had; I don't know if that's a bad thing.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to triple-post, but Nyttend has raised a good argument at VPR: "The current scheme is a good deal better, because the other one clogs it up with lots of other elements [...] the primary map needs to be one that shows just the location of the city and its boundaries, and a secondary one can be created to show rivers, highways, things in other counties, etc." After picturing how the different styles of maps would appear in the place of where they are now in infoboxes, I feel that I agree with him—it would be best for the project to keep the primary maps showing locations of cities as simple as reasonably possible, and I think your maps in the old style fulfill this meaning in existence well.

Because, as you said, I doubt either of us could ever build consensus around switching to the new-style maps (there's simply not enough interest in cartography of minor US communities around here); as such, I would suggest updating the demographic data in articles and updating the maps to versions mimicking the old style, but with updated boundaries of communities. I would be more than happy to do either or both of these if you don't want to (or are sort of "meh" about it), considering how fed up I've been with the outdated data across the US.

Once that's done, you could feel free to continue trying to build consensus on the new-style maps and how/where they should be used in articles. What do you think about this idea? Do you want to take it to the idea lab to see which variety and presentation of map the community would prefer?

Sorry to keep pestering you about this; it's something I really want to see done, and I don't think anyone would disagree with a simple update to the existing maps, as I've outlined above.  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not adverse to taking a step "back" in terms of the maps' content, but I really would like to see a little more in the way of consensus than two or three editors' opinions. The only reason I am hesitant to act a little more boldly is because of what happened previously. To break it down to its most simplest, what happened was I proceeded with the map generating and uploading with a small consensus and went along merrily for several thousand edits until running into some vociferous opposition when I happened onto some of the articles that they maintained. There's nothing quite so upsetting as putting in all that hard work just to run into recalcitrant roadblocks.
That said, it's fairly trivial for me to turn layers on and off in the script I've written, and I don't disagree that spitting out a run of maps based primarily upon the old ones would, at the least, be an improvement. I think the only thing we really aren't strictly in agreement on at the moment is which projection to use .. I have to confess to being really quite stuck on the Albers projection, it just seems much more aesthetically pleasing to me! Shereth 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're hesitant to move forth even with the old maps, I'd be glad to continue work on my script, which I imagine functions similarly to yours. I would also like to see a "real" consensus if you were to make a change, as you would if you were to base the maps on that WikiProject proposal, but I don't think there should be a problem with simply updating the old ones (as long as you upload them under a new filename; I've seen some ugly arguments in that regard on Commons).
If you choose to upload a new batch of maps, do you have a script set up to implement them into articles? As far as I can tell, this would necessitate the following:
  • Locating usage of the old maps, "dot" locator maps, pushpin maps, and other maps in the |map1 attribute of infoboxes on community articles
  • Creating articles for communities without them based on a template, including detailed demographic information and geographic details
  • Updating community type information in existing articles (the changing of "...is an unincorporated community" to "...is a census-designated place" and the like)
  • Adding population, area, population density, and maps to infoboxes and demographic data to the bodies of articles without them (such as the current incarnation of Curlew, Washington)
  • Rearranging links in templates such as Template:Ferry County, Washington to reflect new place type definitions
This would be fairly trivial for me to implement, but I don't know how experienced you are with wiki-editing bots or how you inserted the images originally.
Also, regarding projection: I completely agree that the Albers projection is more aesthetically pleasing; the equirectangular projection does, however, cut down file size. I've been looking into algorithmic north-south stretching with equirectangular SVGs, and it seems very doäble. From what I've seen of people using the technique in their cartography, it could very well replicate the Albers projection while keeping longitudinal correspondences intact.
If the map and data changes are something you'd be comfortable with, I'd say go for it; otherwise, I will. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of who should get blamed for it. I understand that you have been left with a bad taste in your mouth (is that why you "semi-retired"?), so I very much understand if you'd rather not make such a large change by yourself, and I would be glad to do it for you if you so wish.  — TORTOISEWRATH 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found this because Tortoise linked my name. Is there any chance you could do the following sequence of events? (1) Continue the discussion of what to include in the new maps until we've reached consensus. (2) Create and upload the new maps. (3) Get as-close-to-projectwide consensus as possible (perhaps at the same location as the maps discussion; I can't remember where it is) for the new maps. (4) Start uploading, and point complainers to the consensus instead of having to deal with the criticism yourself. Even if people complain about the new maps, at least this way we'll be able to add them to pages where people aren't complaining. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. By the way, the discussion is at WP:VPR#Updated maps of US cities for 2010 census.
Also, directed at Shereth, I have great news regarding projection in case I end up making the maps. This great news is best summarized with a gallery:
I was going to put a gallery here, but I suddenly had a massive problem with my script.
To get these to look right, I utilized a vertical scale factor of sec(central latitude), as suggested to me by NNW. These maps' lack of water features (or omission thereof) is tentative.
By the way, if you know off the top of your head, approximately how long does your script take to generate a map for a community? My runtimes are suspiciously high (20–180 seconds per map in counties it's done before, depending on whether I include the state mini-map; up to an hour in counties it hasn't), but I have some ideas for additional caching and optimization, which I do intend to implement if I am the chosen one, because having the map generation take until September isn't what I had in mind.
Please check VPR for my additional thoughts on this. (Perhaps we should move this discussion over there, to try to get the community involved?)
Oh, and in case you haven't guessed yet, I'll state it outright: I want to do this. I don't know whether I should attribute that to some negative thing like ego or editcountitis, but I know that you also want to do this, and I respect that, because there's no taking away the fact that the principle is yours...and that you're an admin, and those are scary. ;-)
In about seventeen nutshells, here's the plan I'm suggesting:
  1. This entire talk page discussion will be moved somewhere else (either here or idea lab), because keeping it here is stupid
  2. TortoiseWrath will attempt to get community input on:
    • What color scheme should be used
    • What projection should be used
    • What should be included on the maps
    1. If no significant input is obtained, maps will fall back on whatever's traditional or easiest, depending on the mood of the person making them
  3. TortoiseWrath or Shereth, as chosen by a community vote, rock-paper-scissors, whatever, will:
    1. Create and upload updated versions of community maps using the same color scheme as before
      • These maps may or may not include water features
      • Maps both with and without water features may be uploaded under unique designations
      • If either of us can get a bot on Commons with file mover permissions, the old maps MAY be renamed to have (2007) at the end of the name, to reduce confusion
    2. Update articles to include these maps in place of older ones, pushpin maps, or lack of maps
    3. Update articles to reflect changes in census designation
    4. Add census data to articles on former non-CDPs
    5. Create articles for CDPs without them
  4. Shereth, possibly in collaboration with Ixnayonthetimmay (I don't know how that's working on your end), will continue work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/US locations
    • If a consensus can be built, these maps will be generated, uploaded, and implemented by Shereth
  5. As long as someone maintains interest, whichever map set is in use at the time will be updated annually (possibly at the same filename, to reduce server load) to reflect changes in stuff
Let me know what you'd like to do.  — TORTOISEWRATH 02:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added gallery. (And yeah, my state-scaling subroutine is broken; I'm working on it.)  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have moved this discussion to Village pump to try to get further community input.  — TORTOISEWRATH 21:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly five years

You semi-protected New Orleans nearly five years ago. That's quite a long time to keep such an article protected. Before I add a request at WP:RFUP, I am asking you to consider removing the protection. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.199 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US locations maps

Hello Shereth,

Did you received my email about your US location maps conventions ? (if no, I have to resend it to you).

The validity of previous US location map being questionned, I would also like to know the status of this project, and how many maps did you generated ? Yug (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis County file

Concerning this file, can you possibly update it to include the recently new CDP of Old Jamestown, Missouri? I can link you to some maps if needed. Thanks. — Confession0791 talk 05:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Shereth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 22:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daykeeper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daykeeper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daykeeper until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please

I am trying to figure out what became of the revision history for James P. Barker. I saw the DRV. I saw your comment at the AFD, as to how the speedy was not appropriate. No one mentioned any other BLP concern, except BLP1E. Many other articles like this, which end up being merged and redirected to a related article, have their entire history visible.

It would be extremely useful for its history to be visible -- it would make whatever references the article used available for use in other article.

New references may become available, particularly if he is paroled in 2015, when he becomes eligible for parole. For almost all our BLP notability is established by adding up the fractional notability established by a number of factors. Almost none of our BLP have their notability established by a single factor. But, so long as the revision history is obfuscated, ordinary contributors can't determine whether the partial notability established by the new references, added to the partial notability established by the original references, pushes the individual over the threshhold into sufficient notability to merit a standalone article.

Do you see any reason why the revision history should continue to be obfuscate? Do you have advise as to the next step to restore the revision history and talk page?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the revision history is not hidden or obfuscated, but deleted. The original article was deleted, along with its history, and a redirect left in its place; none of the content from the deleted article was merged into the target article. As such, the revision history is not relevant to the information contained within the existing article (the redirect target). As a courtesy I have userfied the content of the deleted article so that you may access it and determine if any of it is of use to you in editing the redirect target, but as the original content was deleted and survived a subsequent review of that deletion, I do not believe it would be appropriate to restore the article history without consensus to that effect (for example, a new DRV). The userfied content is located at User:Geo Swan/James P. Baker. Shereth 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedash

Hello Shereth,

I just wanted to let you know that I have unprotected Wavedash, which you salted back in 2008, as someone wanted to use the page for a redirect. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Monarch tree

The image removed from Lost Monarch page really is of that tree, I left note on the edit summary. It's incredibly hard to get good photos in dense redwood groves; darkness and moisture content of the air make it challenging. If you're willing to schlep a heavy tripod a couple of miles through dense woodlands with trees up to 12 feet laying on their side everywhere, I bet a better image of this could be taken. And no, it's not my picture, but I know the park, the area and the tree. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SSM Template

Hi Shereth. Thanks again for updating the Same-sex marriage template to "un-asterisk" ID. Now we have had to re-asterisk AK, but we then need to logically list Alaska at the bottom for states which have performed marriages which have not been invalidated. Could you please help us out again? Difbobatl (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shereth. Thanks again for your help on the Same-sex Marriage Template. Now someone is trying to protect this template from even more editing. Would you be willing to disagree with this proposal at [Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection]? Thanks either way! Difbobatl (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing city map

Do you still have all of the city map graphic files that you generated back in 2007? I noticed some are missing from Wikipedia.

  • The map for Plains, Kansas is missing, though exists for the other 2 cities in Meade County, Kansas. For example, the "File:Meade County Kansas Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Fowler Highlighted.svg" exists for Fowler, Kansas. I assume a person might be able to use some type of SVG editing tool to convert this map into the one for "Plains" by moving the red circle and removing the red fill and filling the other city with red. I thought I should ask if you have the original instead of trying to find a SVG editor and trying to fix it myself.
  • Another one is missing for a city in the Kansas City metro area (Kansas side), but I can't remember which one. I'll have to do some looking to find it.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have fixed the Plains, KS map. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 21:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lisa Garza

The article Lisa Garza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no assertion of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. After Midnight 0001 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing city map: West Bloomfield Township, Michigan

Hi! I'm trying to see if you made a map for West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. I searched Commons:Category:Maps of Oakland County, Michigan and haven't found one.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for your input on the talk page as SSM in the US. Njsustain (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit war" despite numerous citations supporting my position and the other user offering zero citations, just opinions and questionable logic.

Hello, and good day, Shereth! This is concerning the wiki page of chess player Vishwanathan Anand. It all started in my bid to improve what was not a great wiki page for an all time great chess player. There is no an ongoing edit war despite the fact that I user proper citations from the highest authorities in the chess world to back up my edits. Those arguing against my opinion seem to be doing so because of a strong bias against the player, rather than any facts or citations. Thanks, I hope you get involved as I feel very strongly about the matter. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar for 2016 gop map

The Original Barnstar
For proposing the great map change on the 2016 GOP polling page. Metallurgist (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image update request

In your spare time, would you be able to update File:Phoenix Metro Area Future Freeway System.svg to show that the Loop 202 has been completed, as well as parts of the 303? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Maps/Conventions/US locations

Good morning, Shereth

I was browsing the Conventions page for US Locations, and I see that you made a script to parse the US census data to help generate these maps. I was wondering if you have that script somewhere, so I can use it to help make the maps.

Or, if you don't, do you know any information on how I could make a script to help with this?

Thanks. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 12:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second the call to release your script into the public domain. A lot of place maps are getting out of date because of annexations of territory (and new incorporations and such)!

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Shereth. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Litchfield Park in Maricopa County map.png

Thank you for uploading File:Litchfield Park in Maricopa County map.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Shereth.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Shereth. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 05:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations

User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calton | Talk 16:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Concepción Chile Temple for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concepción Chile Temple is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepción Chile Temple until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. North America1000 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Maps/Conventions/US locations

Good morning, Shereth

I was browsing the Conventions page for US Locations, and I see that you made a script to parse the US census data to help generate these maps. I was wondering if you have that script somewhere, so I can use it to help make the maps.

Or, if you don't, do you know any information on how I could make a script to help with this? —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 15:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shereth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Shereth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Lk2017306 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent an email regarding use of images. Please respond at your earliest convenience. Thank you!

Park Inn listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Park Inn. Since you had some involvement with the Park Inn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Matthew hk (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade, Iowa location map

Could you edit your map of Cascade, Iowa to include its location in Jones County, as well? The city is located in both counties. Justus R (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. Thank you! Justus R (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you edit your map of Cascade, Iowa to include its location in Jones County, as well? The city is located in both counties. 95.105.154.97 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i will that you can help me

Please your help will contribute to my intelligence I will know how to write the safe article Wikipedia the encyclopedia Ezekie yoyi (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luison for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luison is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luison 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.

JTZegersSpeak
Aura 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pror

Template:Pror has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple Brazil

Template:List LDS Temple Brazil has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple South America South

Template:List LDS Temple South America South has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple USA Southwest

Template:List LDS Temple USA Southwest has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple USA Central

Template:List LDS Temple USA Central has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple South America North

Template:List LDS Temple South America North has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple USA Central Map

Template:List LDS Temple USA Central Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple USA Southwest Map

Template:List LDS Temple USA Southwest Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple South America North Map

Template:List LDS Temple South America North Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple South America South Map

Template:List LDS Temple South America South Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List LDS Temple Brazil Map

Template:List LDS Temple Brazil Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of the largest counties in the United States by area for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of the largest counties in the United States by area is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the largest counties in the United States by area 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.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parkville, MO

Can you update the boundaries for Parkville, MO? AstroGatorParkville (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Census source

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me the sources for the us maps from the census?

Thanks 108.45.153.249 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mortimer Goth" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mortimer Goth and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Mortimer Goth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New England city locator maps

Hi there,

The city locator maps that you upload are a great resource. However, I notice that your script leaves towns out as unincorporated. This is inappropriate in the New England context, as towns here are fully incorporated entities equal in power to cities. This has rendered counties as superfluous in most of southern New England, with Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island having abolished almost all of their county level governments. As such, showing large swathes of these counties as unincorporated is wrong and needs to be addressed and rectified.

It's also worth noting that the CDPs that are shown are actually subservient to the towns in which they exist. They may be worth still showing, but not as municipal boundaries as they are now. VulcanTrekkie45 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion for location maps?

Hello,

I have uploaded this map to Wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Municipalities_and_County_Subdivisions_of_the_Unites_States.svg, I was wondering if this could be used to expand the USA location maps that are used on the pages for cities, this map includes town/townships and other non-city/CDP county divisions.

The map may look blank, but I you open it in your browser all the shapes will be created, I am also going to split the map by state. Bradinator33 (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohave County Arizona CDPs

Hello,

I have seen several maps accredited to you, and I was hoping you would create some for Mohave County, AZ that are not currently in the articles. I like your work.

Thanks 38.32.112.170 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]