User talk:IiKkEe

Stille someone who edits the article without commenting on the definition issues ... I'm really frustrated /o\

Did you read the discussion about the concurrent definitions of the GoldBook on talkpage ? What do you think about this ? TomT0m (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not clear what you are saying in your first paragraph, or what you are asking me in the 2nd. And to what edit of mine are you referring? Please elaborate. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The goldbook defines chemical elements either as types of atoms, or as chemical substances. The article currently only reflects the second definition, which is definitely not the most modern. I made an edit on chemical element to mention the two definitions, it was reverted. As I fear this will happen again, I'm trying to build a concensus before retrying. The discussions are all on the article talk page. What do you think about this issue ? I'm here because, as you're one of the most recent editors of the article, you might be interested into this discussion. TomT0m (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you fro your prompt reply. So as I understand, you have no objection to any of my edits, you are simply alerting me to the discussion about the definition? If so, thank you for the courtesy. At this point, I do not have the expertise to take part in the debate, but will certainly follow it. And please give me feedback on any of my edits that you may be frustrated with. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No I did not notice anything (except you edited on the introduction and that's where I did want a change :) ) . I don't really have any expertise below what I put on the different talking about this issue. What I know is that an earlier version of the article was like I want it to be and that the arguments of those who don't want the change are weak : "the definitions are the same" incorrect. "it's too complicated" => that's what the sources says. The current version does not even explain elements are the basics of our matter. That's the definition used in many other Wikipedia. I don't understand why one would want to remove one legitimate and sourced definition. It's a violation of the NPOV policy. TomT0m (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you give me the date and time from the "Edit history" which reflects what you want the Lead to say? I'll be glad to take a look: maybe I will have an opinion! Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep,

1. I found this version (April 2009) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemical_element&oldid=281088028 who seems perfectly fine to me in the introduction and mentions the two definitions.
2. This is the version I proposed following the discussion I started on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, probably imperfect but just talking was not enough to make things move so I included it after a few days when nobody reacted : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemical_element&oldid=666637471

3. In chemistry, chemicals elements are the basic types of components matter made of atoms, ordinary matter like molecules and other chemical compounds are made of. Elements can be defined of two different ways, but in either way the number of protons in atoms nuclei is used to define elements, called the atomic number, because two atoms with the same atomic number have the same chemical properties. Either it is
   * a type of atom with the same number of proton, 1 in the case of hydrogen,
   * a pure chemical substance consisting of a single type of atom distinguished by its atomic number^[1]
   In the first one, we will say that an atom with one proton is hydrogen, or an atom with 2 protons helium, and in the second one we will say that the content of an Hydrogen gaz bottle is hydrogen.

   This is the version I'm proposing on the article talk page for inclusion. Was dejargonized after a discussion with depiep.

I'm mostly interested here in the fundamental definitions. My personal preference would go to a version with the first definition of the goldbook as it's more modern and imho drops the substance stuff who do not serve any purpose in the rest of the article, or worse is even confusing, (and it would ease the work on Wikidata and interlanguage link, but that's not the fundamental issue :) ), but it does not seem to be the definition children learns in english speaking countries, which may be the root of the problem. I'd be happy with any version that mentions the two definitions.

-- TomT0m (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The above is a thoughtful discussion which I believe belongs not only here but also on the Chemical element Talk page. I will paste it there, and will respond to your thoughts there within a couple of days. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Radionuclide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sodium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isotonic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adrenomedullin

added a link pointing to Hypoxic

Valsartan/sacubitril

added a link pointing to Natriuretic peptides

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Essential thrombocythaemia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syncope. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi IiKkEe. Your edit of 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) created a contradiction in the first paragraph of Potassium#Renal filtration, reabsorption, and excretion. You may have intended to copyedit the sentence, but your removal of "All but the" from the start of the sentence inverted its meaning. The resulting paragraph falsely implies that significantly more potassium is excreted daily than is consumed. The old wording was correct. Cheers! -- ToE 21:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey again. I've restored that sentence to its original wording and meaning. -- ToE 15:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

When editing in the [[WP:ELEMENTS}} domain, please do not say your edit is "m" (minor). -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits to Animal have been reverted in whole or in part. I recently removed an edit of yours to the lead to add information about taxonomy because I believe it is out of the article's scope, and you have just added it back in greater detail. (Looking at it now, however, I think it could be included quickly in a way—with copyediting—like "Zoology is the study of animals. Over 66 thousand … exist, and they are organized into groups through the science of taxonomy.") But you also included this information (I believe unnecessarily) in the same level of detail in the Position in taxonomy section with this edit.

In an effort to avoid many further edits and reversions, escalating into edit warring (as WP:BRD is not being followed), it would be greatly appreciated if you would create drafts of sections (including the lead) in your own userspace and then either seek consensus/copyediting on Animal's talk page (probably preferable) or replace the section in whole in the article namespace to allow for other editors to easily see changes made. It looks like you are already storing information about the lead on your user page for reference.

Obviously the article can be improved, but I hope you would agree that with a such a broad topic it is easy to veer off-topic and that since it was a B-class article already, it would be easier to keep track of changes as they are made to the article instead of the article needing more in-depth reviews at a later time. It is less efficient to "thank" an editor for each small edit they make to an article and revert other edits than to just make a larger edit and follow with a quick copyedit. Additionally, a discussion on an entire section on the talk page would be clearer to those involved in editing this page than discussing each individual edit, each in its own section. Let me know what you think. – Rhinopias (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think the basal position of the Porifera and Ctenophora is now more or less settled but their branching order is not clear. My own suspicion is that Porifera are the most basal and the Ctenophora are a branch that went their own way a long time ago. That having been said we need evidence to back that up and that evidence is not available yet. Virion123 (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

hi, do you believe it is wise to have the same diagram twice as it might be useful to use an alternate diagram?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Tom (LT) (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Nephron, they are much appreciated :)

Tom (LT) (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note that you are in violation of the WP:3RR (three revert rule) on Nephron. Iztwoz is not a vandal and what you have is essentially a content war. Please let's work together on the talk page to improve this article as none of us WP:OWN it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey - you have become active in medical content.

Please read WP:MEDHOW - you are breaking WP:MEDMOS and the citations you are adding are not citing the pmid, which is a big pain in the butt for people in WP:MED who watch these artcles. Would you please take some time and get acquainted with the norms of editing health content? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the lead - especially the first few sentences, simple and focused on what is essential. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Lead, as well as this discussion at FAC which stemmed from this trainwreck. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits IiKkEe, and your patients learning our wiki-ways. One more request: before you finish your spates of edits, please have a look / preview the article to prevent issues like this: (go to "structure" section and you'll see what I mean). Not sure why this occured but will attempt to fix it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in while you were still working...seemed like you had taken a break so I tried to make one change and then got edit-conflicted. I'll step back for a bit, let us know when you're done. DMacks (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks You are a true gentleman. I note you are a major contributor to this Page, both in # of edits and bytes of content. This is my 1st day here, and I am a very aggressive (WP: "Bold") editor - so I'm glad you're keeping an eye on me. We won't hesitate to take any differences we might have to the Talk page if needed. My main interest is in organization - you see I've shuffled things around a bit ("as per WPMOS"); plus still to go is an expansion of the Lead to summarize as much of the article as possible there. Thanks for your willingness to wait until I've completed the Lead changes. It may take a couple of days of fits and starts. If you see anything glaring - jump in anytime. And you taught me something new about left-side images: I yield to you on that one, the only "rule" I knew was "everything to the right"! Regards IiKkEe (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemistry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Compound, Elements and Reaction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi IiKkEe, I was surprised to see that the discovery of the ability of lungs to produce platelets was not mentioned in the article about platelets, and then I saw that you deleted a mention of this discovery with the rational "not History, and is primary research, and is animal data".

I'm not to familiar with Wikipedia's rules about reporting scientific discoveries, can you give me more details about the motivations for deleting this mention? In particular, how do you distinguish "primary research" from a result that is "Wikipedia" worthy?

Just out of curiosity. Lboukoko (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines are covered in detail mostly in a section called "Manual of style" and are often referred to informally as "WPMOS" on Wikipedia talk pages. Wikipedia is quite explicit that only scientific information published in review articles from established journals, and textbooks, can be used as citations for referencing information in Wikipedia articles. Their rationale as I understand it is that new scientific information must be verified with follow-up research and with published consensus by experts in that field in relevant journals before being added to the Wikipedia fund of knowledge as accurate and valid.

So platelet production in lungs would need to be verified by another investigator, verified in humans, and acknowledged by experts in a peer-reviewed hematology journal review article or textbook as accurate and valid before being allowed in a Wikipedia article by those who establish Wikipedia guidelines. Verified animal data, but unverified in humans, is allowed in a separate section of an article, usually the last section, titled "Other animals".

Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation ! Lboukoko (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this is a mature, very carefully edited and fully reviewed article, and your changes so far seem at best doubtful improvements. I do hope you won't find it presumptuous if I suggest that we might better discuss whatever you think to change here, as basically every word has been picked over several times already. Of course good articles can be improved further, but there'll be more chance of that if the changes are agreed first. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk) Thank you for your reaching out, your courtesy, and your suggestion. I am very impressed with your contributions to this article since I contributed hundreds of (mostly!) uncontested edits last year. I haven't looked at this article for at least 6 months and have not reviewed each individual edit of the hundreds made since then, so if I am inadvertently changing well-discussed issues from the past, I apologize in advance.

I believe wikipedia protocol calls for initial editing without discussion, followed by discussion if there is disagreement. I welcome - and agree with - the reversions you made to several of my edits: I thought I had a good idea, but your explanation quickly convinced me otherwise. I hope you will continue to scrutinize my edits, revert those you disagree with, and if I disagree with your reversions, we can can have a collegial discussion on the talk page. And I will (eventually) review all of the individual edits since my last edit in 2017 to get totally up to speed. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, and thanks for the reply. Well, let's do that. I do believe that the article, as it now is, is robust and coherent. That means that improving it will generally mean new zoology based on recent review papers in the best journals. It's not impossible that copy-editing and suchlike will help, but given the article's state it really can't be a priority. And if there's one place not to begin tweaking, it's the lead section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well let me take you up on your offer to discuss prior to an edit, but do it here rather than on the talk page unless we can't quickly agree on an edit and need 3rd party input. So here goes: does the 7 million alluded to in Lead para 1 refer to species or insects? I would like to clarify via an edit once I know the answer. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Very plainly, animals: I've said so, but I am quickly becoming convinced that we are editing to the detriment of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ATP, Nucleus and Domain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supergroup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vitamin B12 deficiency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assemblage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asexual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

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 is article_text which is now page_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.

Just an FYI that I revised the lead of the Vitamin article. David notMD (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC).

David notMD Thank you for your courtesy notification. I note that you have contributed 7073 characters to this article; I, 4362; so this is a collaborative effort! Overall, I like what you have done to the Lead, which improves it another notch. I may be tempted to tweak some of your tweaks: be on the lookout, and feel free to discuss. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problems with tweaks - Wikipedia is definitely a collaborative effort! I've since copied in part of a table I had created at Nutrient, and at the article's talk, raised the question of whether this still deserves its GA classification. P.S. My background is PhD from MIT in nutritional biochemistry. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Help copy edit, improvements, add archive link for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. 125.214.50.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

125.214.50.24 (talk) I have no idea why you sent this to me: I have no knowledge of this person. IiKkEe (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agglutinin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mosquito, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

On a personal note, could you please stop thanking me for fly edits, it feels patronising and inappropriate. I'll appreciate that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap (talk) I will stop. I wonder why WP offers the reader the opportunity to show appreciation for an astute edit with which they agree? No patronizing from me, only gratitude! Regards IiKkEe (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mosquito, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes Sir Sputnik Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes Everyking • Jackmcbarn Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni Oversight changes Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93 Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metabolism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synthesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gastroesophageal reflux disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mammal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cohort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Odd-toed ungulate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes Galobtter Orangemike BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange Bureaucrat changes Addshore

CheckUser changes Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime Oversight changes AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cetacea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beluga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

because it is the correct way to define them. Serendi^podous 22:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@IiKkEe:: I recently tagged you on the "Cat" Talk page regarding an edit I made, and which you subsequently changed. It's under the section "Lead, para 2, sentence 4 – clarity and concision". I wonder if you'd mind taking a look and responding, please? Rgrayuk (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intervertebral disc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cervical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes Evad37 There'sNoTime Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ritchie333

CheckUser changes There'sNoTime Keegan • Ks0stm Oversight changes There'sNoTime Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

IiKkEe, you should rethink your approach, especially when you go about editing WP:Good or WP:Featured articles, or articles on topics you are not familiar with, and when some of those articles are controversial. See what WP:CAREFUL states. It states, "Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page."

In a number of cases, your edits are tinkering with the article in ways that are problematic. I state this because it's not unusual for them to not align with Wikipedia's rules. It's not unusual for them to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. If the lead is formatted a certain way, it is likely because of rules, including WP:Due weight, especially if it's a WP:Good or WP:Featured article. The same goes for section headings and other article layout matters. If the article is a WP:Good or WP:Featured article, what to include and not to include and how to include it has usually been discussed extensively.

I know that you are prone to WP:Edit war and maintain that an article stick with your changes, but you should sometimes just move on. I do not have patience to deal with your reverting, especially if it's to a WP:Good or WP:Featured article. And I don't want to waste time debating you on your changes. I am likely to pull other editors in and/or take the matter to WP:ANI if it needs to go there.

Also, per WP:HOUND, don't start following me to articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. I hope we continue collaborating!

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Did! --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah Mentifisto → Lofty abyss Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

I'm undoing your last edit to the project page. You added your user to where the link goes, instead of at the end of that page. I hope that makes sense. Anyway, it should work just fine after a revert. I just didn't want to undo your edit without letting you know why! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus720 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What is this "over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury (TBI)"?

Are you reading the sources in question? There is no such thing as a score over 15.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jimmy Treybig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellaire High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS Necrothesp Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman Interface administrator changes Pharos

Bureaucrat changes Primefac CheckUser changes Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

failure is the cause, the individual is instructed to decrease intake of salt. Medications in this case may include diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.[12] ....the image you deleted was an ACE inhibitor which is included in reference 12.....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• this is covered by reference --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audible (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atrium (heart), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ventricle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

It's quite long! Archiving can be done automatically and will help only recent or active topics remain on your talk page. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hepatitis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chronic and Acute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hepatitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Protease inhibitor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

I first encountered you at the Blackmail article in October 2018. That resulted in this discussion. After seeing you at the Blackmail article, I knew that I would have issues with your editing going forward. Sure enough, I later saw you at the Obsessive–compulsive disorder article in March 2019. Doc James and I had issues with your editing of that article. I addressed you on that article's talk page. You didn't reply. That same day, I addressed you on your talk page. Some of the things I stated are the following: "In a number of cases, your edits are tinkering with the article in ways that are problematic. I state this because it's not unusual for them to not align with Wikipedia's rules. It's not unusual for them to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. If the lead is formatted a certain way, it is likely because of rules, including WP:Due weight, especially if it's a WP:Good or WP:Featured article. The same goes for section headings and other article layout matters. If the article is a WP:Good or WP:Featured article, what to include and not to include and how to include it has usually been discussed extensively." Just a month later, we see Doc James post the #Seriously! section on your talk page, asking, "Are you reading the sources in question?"

Indeed, at various medical articles, which Doc James usually happens to be watching, you have made unnecessary stylistic changes that often leave the text in a less accurate, simply inaccurate, and/or sloppy state. I do not say this to be antagonistic or hurtful. I say it because it's the truth. Doc has to revert you time and time again, and he shouldn't have to. Since you are editing medical articles, significant care should be taken with those articles, and your edits still often lack care. They also often deviate from the sources. We see that here at the Heart failure aritcle, here at the Osteoarthritis article, here at the Human papillomavirus infection article, here at the Subconjunctival bleeding article, and at a number of other articles. Your editing reminds me Anthony22's editing, except that his problematic stylistic changes mainly concerned biographies. He was recently "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia." I have been considering addressing your editing at ANI and seeing what the community states. This post is sort of a heads up on that since I don't see that you will stop engaging in your particular style of editing. We can't have our medical articles compromised. Same goes for our anatomy articles. Your penchant for edit warring and wanting text your way has lessened, but it still exists. I mean, do you just decide to watchlist every article you have edited, waiting for someone to revert or otherwise change things so that you can contest the edit(s)?

I told you before, "I do not have patience to deal with your reverting, especially if it's to a WP:Good or WP:Featured article. And I don't want to waste time debating you on your changes. I am likely to pull other editors in and/or take the matter to WP:ANI if it needs to go there." I mean that. Doc James may be able to put up with your stylistic changes that make articles less accurate or inaccurate, and simply revert you where necessary, but I won't, especially since it seems you've decided to move into the areas I more normally edit. And what? Because I objected to your edits at the Oral sex article? Because I ignored your post here? Because of my previous clashes with you? Whatever the case, I don't appreciate editors trying to get my attention by moving into areas I more normally edit or following me. Maybe the community will decide that you should refrain from editing medical articles broadly construed, including anatomy and sexuality articles. I don't know, but something needs to be done. If you reply to me on any of this, I ask that you reply here on your talk page, not at mine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Started an WP:ANI thread on your editing here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello IiKkEe. The discussion of your edits can be seen at:

WP:ANI#IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray.

You have continued to edit articles since User:Flyer22 Reborn left you the notice of the ANI, which may suggest you are ignoring the issue. If this goes on, I suggest that admins should consider blocking your account. The problems are serious and need an answer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@IiKkEe: I echo the comments above. Serious concerns have been raised in the discussion and they need a response. The only remedy available when concerns are raised and the editor is unwilling or unable to respond is a block to prevent further editing. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Failure to discuss your edits, apparent problems with competence. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have continued to edit main space without responding to the complaint at ANI, after getting the warning above. Regardless of the quality of your edits, a long-term failure to make any response to complaints about your edits is blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Who are you? Who do I discuss this with? I assume with an objective administrator assigned to look into the accusations, not one of my accusers. I am not familiar with this process. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You can discuss it with me here, if you wish. I'm an administrator, and I issued the block based on the ANI. The issues with your editing are those that were documented in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray. When people complain about your edits you should be willing to discuss the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I am certainly willing to discuss the matter. How do we proceed? And who ultimately decides if I am permanently blocked from WP? Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no central command at Wikipedia. Instead, messy discussions occur and consensus is judged. The ANI discussion linked above includes comments such as "it is not clear if IiKkEe actually reads the sources in question or [simply] changes text to what they personally feel is better". That kind of problem must be addressed before continuing to edit. Please carefully read the discussion and respond to a small number of key points. I mentioned small because it is best if responses are reasonably brief and focused on important matters. If you are willing to do that and wait before further editing, please say so and an administrator will remove the block so you can post at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree to stop editing until this matter is resolved. No one asked me to stop editing when Flyer22 Reborn registered a complaint against me, so I continued to edit. It was not an act of defiance. And no deadline to respond was given to me, so I assumed I could respond once I cold get a grip on what an ANI is, which I had never heard of. Now I know that EdJohnston is an administrator, and has reached out and offered to discuss this matter with me, and who has temporarily blocked my ability to edit. I asked him two questions, and he has not yet responded. May I ask what your role in this matter is, Johnuniq? Are you also an administrator? Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator. An easy check is to look at a user's contributions and click "User rights" at the bottom of that page. Bear in mind that who is and who is not an administrator is not important when it comes to assessing opinions at ANI—see the "consensus" link I gave earlier. Your questions were answered by me so EdJohnston may not have felt a need to elaborate. The block is due to expire in 10 hours and I hope EdJohnston (who is not currently active) will not mind if I unblock you now without the customary consultation first. Please re-read my above advice about responding to the issues at ANI. You might also review WP:INDENT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Now that you know that I have agreed to stop editing articles until the allegations against me can be addressed, is there a deadline for my response? I would prefer to take a few days to fully understand how this process normally plays out before I respond. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A few days is excessive because ANI is a high-turnover noticeboard and things have to move forward. You were notified at 15:43, 25 October 2019 and a warning with a mention of a block was posted above at 15:29, 26 October 2019. However, there is no need for an immediate response as everything is flexible here. Please be aware that a resumption of editing before the ANI discussion is closed may well lead to an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) Thank you for allowing me some time to consider my reply. I have completed a draft of my response and will post the final version here within 24 hours. In the meantime, I will continue not to edit. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, but as mentioned, before posting please re-read my above advice about responding to the issues at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

IiKkEe, I have closed the ANI discussion involving you. There is consensus that your editing is problematic and has harmed article quality - specifically, stylistic changes resulting in inaccuracies. To remedy this, there is also consensus that your self-proposed restrictions (1), (2), (3), (4) should be implemented. You are cautioned to adhere to these guidelines and not to waste this second chance per WP:ROPE as further problematic editing will likely result in harsher sanctions being implemented. I will paste your restrictions below. starship.paint (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

1) I will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited.

2) I will place a notice on the Talk page of any article I plan to edit, which will include which one paragraph or section I plan to edit, and will invite scrutiny of my edits. I will also notify any major active contributor(s) at that site.

3) I will accept any reversions of my edits and discuss them on the Talk page if I have questions.

4) I will make no more than 10 edits per day to any Article.

IiKkEe (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad • Pakaran Interface administrator changes MSGJ

CheckUser changes L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47 Ivanvector DeltaQuad Oversight changes L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Hi IiKkEe, it's great to have another active editor in the anatomy space. I note that you've just had a dispute above and been blocked recently and would like to flag some things with you in regard to Thyroid, after noting an extensive amount of stylistic edits . I think some improve the article, but the majority at best rearrange content, and at most make things more difficult to read.

I have brought to good article status am so am interested in its overall quality. Because it is a good article I am paying more attention to the edits because it has already passed through peer review and I'd like to maintain it at this standard. Happy to discuss with you my own thoughts but I'd ask you to please consider some key points:

1. Not every paragraph needs a wikipedia heading. Wikipedia is written discursively which means in paragraph format, and most of your edits relate to moving content around to fit new headings to arbitarily divide or organise content, if most headings are just going to result in a single paragraph of text (or two after you've split a paragraph). Major things and major subsections get headings; if it's not that important, it shouldn't get one.
2. Please acquaint yourself with WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, which is a guideline about how anatomy articles are arranged and something that is in general followed.
3. I note that you have a tendency to listify content, which I feel makes things more difficult to read. I also feel it tends to convert encyclopedic articles into articles that function more as catalogues. I have made a comment about listifying Thyroid#Clinical significance and posted it on the thyroid talk page.

I feel your edits clearly show your desire to improve the article for readers which is great and I hope we can work together on other anatomy articles too, so please treat my above comments not as an overall comment but just on one or two aspects of your editing :).--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Congenital iodine deficiency syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cretin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw recently that you had volunteered to restrict your edits to 10 per article per day, and wondered if this limitation is still supposed to be in place since your more that 20 edits to Vitamin B12 deficiency so far today. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. It is a permanent self-imposed restriction in order to give co-editors such as yourself a chance to review my edits and revert or modify them before I get too far along. When I get zoned in on revising an article, I can forget to keep count.

I will try harder to stop at 10 per day. It is gratifying to see that you are reviewing all of my edits, leaving most unaltered, further improving some, and adding your own. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not reviewing all of your edits I gave that up on the Nephron page. A lot of your edits are left – they are mostly stylistic minor edits as Tom pointed out re your thyroid edits. The real issue here is the reasoning for the persistence in these myriad of edits that make little overall difference. There are countless stubs and C class articles that are in real need of attention. Your time and energy would be well spent on some of these. The discourse that has taken place between you and other editors is evident of the disruptiveness of a lot of your editing. I also recall from a posting of your's to a previous editor Figgep, that you were laying great store by the number of edits that it was possible to make to a page thereby making someone the top contributor.--Iztwoz (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I was going to bring this up today. You need to stick to the conditions of your topic ban editing restrictions. As was made clear at ANI, it's not just that your stylistic changes are changes that don't harm articles; it's that a lot of your stylistic changes do harm articles. Otherwise, editors would not be as concerned. You made more than 10 edits on December 10, 2019 at the Thyroid article. You made more than 10 edits on December 11, 2019 at the Congenital hypothyroidism article. You made more than 10 edits on December 13, 2019 at the Vitamin B12 deficiency article. You made more than 10 edits on December 13, 2019 at the Thrombocythemia article. You made more than 10 edits on December 18, 2019 at the the Vitamin B12 deficiency article. As seen here, with your "mild elevation" edit, you are still using your preferred terminology. But what do the sources state? How accurate is "mild elevation"? Here, Doc James reverted your addition as "unreffed." And Doc James is still reverting or tweaking your edits due to issues. Pinging EdJohnston and Johnuniq for their thoughts. Doc, you might also want to weigh in here as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:IiKkEe, it seems you are unable to follow your self-imposed restrictions. Can you explain why I shouldn't proceed with an indefinite block? EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thrombocythemia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clonal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IiKkEe, I hope that you are having a wonderful festive period. I've been thinking recently about your edits to Thyroid. It's clear you have a lot of energy to improve the encyclopedia. However most of that energy is wasted because it is expended editing articles that are already "Good", and having reviewed your edits for the most part it is unclear if they improve things or not. That's because most of your edits are stylistic.

I want to make an offer to you, which is that we edit an anatomy article together with the goal of getting it to good article status. Making content edits seems like a natural progression from the type of edits you're making. What's more (and this is what really keeps me here) is that it is very satisfying to be contributing content, you learn a lot editing content, and (unlike stylistic edits) content based edits tend to be lasting.

I would also like to try my hand at mentoring you whilst we go about this. If you look at my user page, you can see that I have good articles + reviews under my belt. I would really like to help you learn the ropes content editing - wise, as I think I'll have some tips that might demistify, improve the quality of, and improve the speed of content editing, as well as direct you to some good sources you can use. I think this would improve the quality of your editing and hopefully would also shift some of the direction most of your feedback is in.

If you're interested, I think it would be good if we started on a fairly straightforward anatomical structure such as a nerve, artery or muscle that is not too complex. I scrolled through the list of 500 most popular anatomical articles and examples might be:

• Clavicle
• Sternum
• Femoral artery
• Tibia
• Gluteus maximus
• Ulnar nerve

Believe it or not, each article above gets between 250,000 and 500,000 annual views.

I hope you take up this offer and look forward to hearing from you. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Tom (LT), I know that you want more anatomy editors, but I think that your efforts will be wasted on IiKkEe. He doesn't just edit anatomy articles. And his edits have been problematic at different types of articles. He's still going to use his preferred wording that is likely inaccurate and add unsourced material. But since you intend to go through with this, I suggest you remind him to keep his editing restriction in mind. He's surely had his last warning above. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Tom (LT)Sorry to take 3 months to reply, I have been away from WP most of that time. I would *love* to collaborate! How about we start out with my picking 1 of the 6 topics you suggested, and I'll do 5 edits. I will not proceed beyond 5 until you have reviewed my work. If all is 100% OK in your view, "Thank" me for #5, and I'll do another 5, etc... If you don't like something I have done, either revert or take me to the Talk page. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have been editing other types of articles. Still, it's the same type of editing. I haven't checked for any errors. But even at those articles, you struggle with limiting yourself to ten edits per day. And this is even after statements in the #Self-imposed edit limits section above, including the warning from EdJohnston. So exactly how is mentorship supposed to help when you can't even fully abide by something such as "I will make no more than 10 edits per day to any Article."? And with you now editing BLP articles, the concern regarding your editing is sure to increase; Wikipedia takes BLP articles even more seriously than medical articles. See WP:BLP. I don't know if I should address this at ANI or what. It seems that you are going about your self-imposed restrictions as though they are optional. They aren't. They were put in place as an alternative to topic banning or indefinitely blocking you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@IiKkEe sounds good! Let me know which one and we can go from there. I'll start earmarking my books at home :). @Flyer22 Frozen I'm happy to work with IiKkEe and see how things go. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT), and I am still concerned about him not fully abiding by his editing restrictions. The warning at the end of the #ANI section and warning from EdJohnston in the #Self-imposed edit limits section above are clear. The editing restrictions are not optional. If he continues to fail to fully abide by them, I will take the matter to ANI. You can work with him within the restrictions. Also keep in mind that, like I stated above, this editor does not only edit anatomy articles. So I'm not sure if your mentorship will only focus on anatomy or fall within editing in general. But his edits have been problematic at different types of articles, especially medical articles. I can see how things go, but I stand by my above "01:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I see your point. I don't mean this collaboration to be any form of shield or excuse and I certainly don't mean to take any responsibility with respect to this editor's editing - that should be held by IikKEe alone. That said I do look forward to working with a potential collaborator and will try and be clear with my feedback --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see it has come to an indef block. Have moved gluteus maximus back to mainspace. Ping me if you are unblocked in the future and would like to collaborate. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday, on 5 April 2020 Recently User:IiKkEe made 24 edits at Dorothy Hodgkin. This exceeds the ten edits that they agreed upon in their their restriction. Since they are not keeping up their end of the bargain, I intend to go ahead with an indefinite block of their account. Restrictions have value only for those who understand them and are willing to follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston Depends on what time zone you are in. By my clock, 10 were on 4 April; 10 were on 5 April; 4 were on 6 April. I repeat: I intend to follow the self imposed restrictions. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston If you prefer, I will be glad to revert 4 of these most recent edits, and resubmit them in 24 hours so there is no question about my compliance. IiKkEe (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston And in the future, to avoid any confusion, if I submit 10 edits in a row, I will pause for a full 24 hours before resuming. IiKkEe (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I welcome this clarification. But what about your restriction #2? This appears to say you would propose your edits first on the article talk page, to give a chance for prior review by others?: I will place a notice on the Talk page of any article I plan to edit, which will include which one paragraph or section I plan to edit, and will invite scrutiny of my edits. I will also notify any major active contributor(s) at that site. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thank you for that reminder, I will do that immediately at all recent sites I have edited. After being away from WP since DEcember, I only remembered that I agreed to notify any *major active* editors via the Talk page. I checked for these when I resumed editing some articles a couple of days ago, and when I found none, I didn't post my intention to edit. I will do that now and in the future! I plan to edit the article Gluteus maximus later today with the scrutiny of Tom (LT), and I will both post notice first, and stop at 10 edits for 24 hours. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, considering this, please just go ahead and block IiKkEe. At the time that I made the comment at Talk:Buttocks, I didn't know that IiKkEe had also shown up to the Erogenous zone article. Regardless of whether he simply didn't check the edit history or considered "Flyer22 Frozen" to be a different person despite the fact I have commented in this section as "Flyer22 Frozen", IiKkEe has repeatedly shown that he cannot adhere to restrictions...even when the restrictions are his own. He even failed to abide by his recent (above) "And in the future, to avoid any confusion, if I submit 10 edits in a row, I will pause for a full 24 hours before resuming" restricton. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Failure to adhere to your editing restrictions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per the above discussion, my previous warning on 6 April, and the original ANI complaint which led to the restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnstonI do not understand why I am being blocked. Please explain. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The restrictions were here. You aren't able to stick to the ten-edit-per-day rule, you aren't consistent in offering your edits on the talk page for prior approval, and you are not staying away from articles previously edited by User:Flyer22 Frozen (formerly known as User:Flyer22 Reborn). EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnstonThank you for your response. I did not know Flyer22 Reborn had changed their name: I put that name in the "Edits by individual" section and came up with nothing. I did not count 2 minor edits where I corrected my spacing and punctuation errors. And I already promised you I would go to the Talk pages and give notice of my edits where there are no current major active editors to notify; I did some so far but not all.

Please reconsider the block. I hope you see from my 3 responses that I am acting in good faith in this matter. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill Deor • Spartaz • Xeno Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Oversight changes Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes Dennis Brown Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes Money emoji Athaenara • DeltaQuad Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes DeltaQuad Oversight changes DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.