User talk:Ceranthor/Archive 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ceranthor. 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. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
Spot-checks
Hello Ceranthor, I went back to working on Regine Velasquez's, which I hope to renom some time soon. I was wondering if you could provide some random spot checks on the sourcing when you get a chance, since it was one of the reasons while it failed its prev nom. It had an issue with copyvio, which I have addressed (a portion of the article got ripped off and appeared on her iTunes bio). Pseud 14 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oops - totally thought I had responded to this. @Pseud 14: I'd be happy to help. Just the spot checks? ceranthor 18:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perfectly fine @Ceranthor:: Yep, random spot checks on the sourcing. I know you had provided your comments on the previous PR and FAC, but if you feel that there's still room to improve before renom I'd be happy to revise, otherwise, i'm good with any help you can provide. Feel free to put in your comments on the article talk page. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Peer review newsletter #1
Introduction
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
- THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
- Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.
Updates
.jpg)
,_160906,_ako.jpg)
Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.
We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
Update #3: advertising
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:
Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.- Other contestants who qualified for the final round were
Nova Crystallis, 
Iazyges, 
SounderBruce, 
Kosack and 
Ceranthor.
During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Administrator changes
None
Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Interface administrator changes
- Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux
Guideline and policy news
- Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
- Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
- Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says
Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example isarticle_textwhich is nowpage_title. - Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is
page_age.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Administrator changes
- Justlettersandnumbers • L235
- Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
- Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333
Oversight changes
- Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
- There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
- Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
- Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
- The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
- Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
- Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Disambiguation link notification for October 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boring Lava Field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Talk:P. K. Sen (surgeon)/GA1
Ceranthor, as you weren't pinged you probably didn't realize that the nominator of this GAN, which you were reviewing, has withdrawn the nomination. You'll want to close the review as unsuccessful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Review of a first GA review
Hi, I'm contacting you because you're an editor on the GA mentors list who likes science and I've just done my first review of the Fibrothorax article. Would you mind looking at my review? I'd appreciate any feedback/suggestions. Thank you! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're off to a good start! I reviewed one of the nominator's other GANs and ended up failing it - in this case, the article seems like it could be more comprehensive. The prose seems fine, but there are some individual things that should be fixed before it's up to a GA standard. Happy to provide more detailed feedback if you'd like. ceranthor 15:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would love to hear more of your feedback! What are some of the individual things/what else does the article seem like it should include? I looked over the article again and agree, so I did change the review a bit to reflect that. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 10:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Originalmess: I do worry that the article is not sufficiently comprehensive. There are more potential sources to be mined at , and the fact that there are more than 2,500 results at Google Scholar gives me pause. What do you think? ceranthor 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would love to hear more of your feedback! What are some of the individual things/what else does the article seem like it should include? I looked over the article again and agree, so I did change the review a bit to reflect that. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 10:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Review of Earthquake Article
Hello! I'm just in the process of completing my wikipedia article on the Olancha earthquake Series, I was wondering if you could review it or maybe just check my language, I'm usually very good with this just need another set of eyes. Thankyou! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olancha_Earthquake_Sequence_(2009)
