User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 85
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FAC statistics
Nominations (18 are conoms):
| Ealdgyth: FAC nominations | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| # FACs | Outcome | ||
| Year nominated | Archived | Promoted | |
| 2008 | 8 | ||
| 2009 | 15 | ||
| 2010 | 11 | ||
| 2011 | 13 | ||
| 2012 | 6 | ||
| 2013 | 4 | ||
| 2015 | 2 | ||
| 2017 | 1 | ||
| 2020 | 1 | ||
| Grand Total | 1 | 60 | |
Reviews:
| Ealdgyth: FAC reviews | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| # FACs | Type | ||
| Declaration | Image | Source | Content |
| Support | 81 | ||
| Oppose converted to support | 25 | ||
| Struck oppose | 2 | ||
| Oppose | 26 | 35 | |
| No declaration | 3 | 1933 | 60 |
| Grand Total | 3 | 1961 | 201 |
Very impressive. You've paid your dues! I think Nikki might have your source total beaten, and a couple of reviewers such as Tony and Sandy might have your total of all types of reviews beaten, but I would bet you're one of the top five reviewers of all time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- YIKES! Mike Christie I'd rather put this here than at FAC talk. In relation to some recent complaints (two in particular), I am thinking that some data on ratios might eventually be helpful. From what you have put up so far, we have boatloads of editors who give a lot more to help others than they get in return; the ratio of reviews to nominations of those you have posted so far is impressive. On the other hand, we have heard complaints from nominators who haven't wanted to take the advice I've tried to offer in my essay, and have literally never reviewed another FAC. There is a sense of self-centered entitlement: I worked hard on this, therefore you are obligated to reward my work, which is ever so much more important than anything else on the 'pedia. It's a bit self-centered for editors to think they can bring a complex topic to FAC, never having engaged FAC themselves, and expect it to be promoted on the first go-round. I'm fairly certain I had reviewed over one hundred FACs and FARs before I ventured my own nomination. You might eventually want to calculate the mean ratio of reviews to nominations, including showing the plus/minus two standard deviation cutoff, to help identify what the top group looks like, and the bottom group, relative to the mean. That is, if you took the top more than two standard deviations above the mean reviews/nominations ratio, you'd end up with those looking something like Ealdgyth, Nikki, you and others, with Ealdgyth at (1961+201+3)/61 = 35 reviews of other people's work for every nomination of her own. I am still gobsmacked that nominators who won't heed the advice I offer in my essay feel so entitled to demand that we keep their nominations open indefinitely and pass their work on their first try, even though they have never lifted a finger to help other editors or understand the standards; perhaps if they saw how MUCH others engage FAC, it would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am on the road ..out in the semi with spouse for at least three and a a half more weeks. I had...laptop ..issues...that I just got resolved yesterday so hopefully I can do some source reviews. And some arching and promotion. Is there anything I need to turn my eagle eye to first? Ealdgyth (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, glad you asked. You MUST get over to Gog's talk and weigh in on the issue which began here. This is the third time in as many months I have encountered blaringly obvious POV in articles which passed ACR, and Gog is gathering Coords to talk about my concerns. The discussion is incomplete without you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, just pointing out that the current discussion is not about your ACR point, but about FAC source reviewing. I haven't forgotten your ACR point, which is, IMO, a sound one, but I don't want what I see as two separate issues to be confused, and I only have so much bandwidth. So I propose to start a discussion re ACR sourcing on the MilHist coordinators' talk page in a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I hear you, Gog the Mild, but in my mind, it is hard to separate the issues with such a clear delineation. Whether POV is getting through via GAN, ACR or FAC, it is still a problem of not looking at sourcing. I am not sure I want to throw this back at MILHIST, as if it is only a MILHIST issue, just because they happen to have an A-class process. In fact, my queries as they relate to MILHIST ACR have much more to do with more personal interest wrt medical editing. That is, if WP:MED had an A-class review, what would it look like, and what would be expected of it? I would think that as a minimum, it would provide some assurance to other editors that the medical aspects of the article had been looked at and cleared by medical editors. I bring that expectation to MILHIST A-class. I can understand that MILHIST could have missed the Noriega issues, because that is more based on cultural awareness, but we should be able to expect MILHIST to flag up blatant POV such as "Eisenhower was wrong". Yet still ... that is a criticism of content review overall ... that one is such a red flag that no one should be passing it anywhere, so again, not just a MILHIST criticism. The bottom line is that POV would be passing FAC if I hadn't weighed in ... I guess we should be focusing on the broader question of what gives, then whether it is strictly a sourcing issue. But sourcing concerns are raised when little 'ole me (non-MILHIST) has enough books laying around the house to point out these issues ... I am still avoiding weighing in on your talk until I am sure everyone has had a chance to opine, as I tend towards being a bit forceful in discussions :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, just pointing out that the current discussion is not about your ACR point, but about FAC source reviewing. I haven't forgotten your ACR point, which is, IMO, a sound one, but I don't want what I see as two separate issues to be confused, and I only have so much bandwidth. So I propose to start a discussion re ACR sourcing on the MilHist coordinators' talk page in a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, glad you asked. You MUST get over to Gog's talk and weigh in on the issue which began here. This is the third time in as many months I have encountered blaringly obvious POV in articles which passed ACR, and Gog is gathering Coords to talk about my concerns. The discussion is incomplete without you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am on the road ..out in the semi with spouse for at least three and a a half more weeks. I had...laptop ..issues...that I just got resolved yesterday so hopefully I can do some source reviews. And some arching and promotion. Is there anything I need to turn my eagle eye to first? Ealdgyth (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, back in 2016 or 2017 there was a conversation about exactly this point on WT:FAC. I will try and dig out the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Found it: see here. I will have to go back and re-read it before commenting further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reading now, but got sidetracked by other conversations I saw in that archive, that occurred while I was absent Wikipedia. I hope you realize how depressing it is for me to read all of the misrepresentations made constantly about "the Raul era", since Raul was NOTHING like his detractors (meaning those who have seen the FA process divided into turfdoms aimed only at self-promotion) paint him to be. Still reading, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mike, I like the gist/direction you were headed, but I think that automating it would encourage gaming the system. Remember, we have entire segments of the FAC instructions written around abusive nominators, who actively gamed the system, and my not-even-remotely-humble opinion about what went on between 2015 and 2019 is similar. Not only that, for the first time (to my knowledge) ever, we had active quid-pro-quo posting accepted within FACs, which shocks me, as that is something we have always eschewed for good reason. And we had people doing what barely amounted to drive by reviews so they could promote their quid-pro-quo requests for WikiCup reciprocal reviews. I think it is sufficient that you have made the data available; I don't think we should do any more than use it as you have so far (to each individual if they request it) and in a conglomerated form (eg, means with standard deviations, to single out what a top reviewer looks like, relative to average, relative to below average). I do believe that doing anything more systematic with the numbers will encourage slapdash reviewing, because that is what predominated in the quid-pro-quo Wikicup reviewing, what predominated in the 2015-19 drive to do away with strict reviewers, and also what is my concern about what is going on in ACR. The other problem is we just don't always want to encourage reviewers ... there are editors who are good writers, but lousy reviewers. I think your data will be invaluable, but has to be carefully used to avoid misuse and to avoid encouraging the wrong behaviors, in precisely the way WP:WBFAN did (and that dear old Yomangani rejected). No, for me the simple answer to what ails FAC always has been and still is: leadership. We fired the leader, and then disempowered the people we put into different factions. The end result has been nothing but the aim to climb the WBFAN rank and get your work on the mainpage, and to heck with the thousands of FAs that aren't. I am somewhat encouraged of late because some really solid reviewers seem to be coming up the line, which is why I keep trying to work on developing from the bottom up ... via peer review, via FAR, via reaching out more to people as we did before we had that stupid pingie thingie ... just my ideas ... I say let people use this data as each sees fit, but if a certain editor pops up again to complain they were mistreated at their Ever So Important FAC, I may be more inclined to ask, and what made you so entitled? Here's what the average FAC nominator/reviewer looks like, and here's how much it takes to develop these skills ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am girding my loins for another attempt at reviving strict source reviews. It'll last a little longer than the last few if I get some folks who have my back...Ealdgyth (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- So, here's my take on where that stands (factor in the Pollyanna issue :). I have been squawking for years, to no avail, but there is a new crop of reviewers who are paying attention. And the disruptive factor is temporarily waning. (By disruptive, I mean, we are going to push our buddies' FACs up the WBFAN list by having a VERY long FAC filled with nothing but prose nitpicking and no examination of sources, making it appear that we had a real review, when we didn't ... which is precisely where Mike and I diverge on the utility of his measure of the length of FACs ... a long FAC of prose nitpicks is useless. :) In other words, I see a window of opportunity, but not if you keep bouncing around Kentucky! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can review and coord from the truck. Actually researching articles is not so easy and I couldn't shepherd an article through FAC until I get home and have all the sources there in case I need them. But it's amazing what they do with mobile hotspots these days. And even my rather... crappy laptop lets me edit wikipedia at least with no great problems. I can even work on my outside-of-wikipedia research and writing as well as the computer gaming gig! Ealdgyth (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, I agree that making the data passively available is probably the best approach for now. When experienced editors like Sarah, Victoria, and Iridescent all are opposed, as they were, it’s time to step back and think again — I’m not sure they were right but if they’re unconvinced another look is needed. So I’ll make the data available (no idea how long that’ll take) and we’ll see. One other comment: I don’t recall when I first reviewed at FAC, but I suspect it was a *long* time after my first nomination. It is an intimidating place; I thought then that I could hack it, and I’m glad I wasn’t wrong about that, but I wasn’t keen to make a fool of myself. I really can’t blame new nominators who are reluctant to jump in and review. If you can get new nominators to review effectively, that’s a big plus, but most FACs are from repeat nominators, and we’re the ones who should feel obligated to give back reviews. I started my user page list of my nominations paired with reviews done at the same time back around the time of the thread I linked to above, because I wanted to encourage other long-time FAC nominators to do the same.
- Ealdgyth, let me know if there’s anything I can do to support you in working on source reviewing standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can review and coord from the truck. Actually researching articles is not so easy and I couldn't shepherd an article through FAC until I get home and have all the sources there in case I need them. But it's amazing what they do with mobile hotspots these days. And even my rather... crappy laptop lets me edit wikipedia at least with no great problems. I can even work on my outside-of-wikipedia research and writing as well as the computer gaming gig! Ealdgyth (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- So, here's my take on where that stands (factor in the Pollyanna issue :). I have been squawking for years, to no avail, but there is a new crop of reviewers who are paying attention. And the disruptive factor is temporarily waning. (By disruptive, I mean, we are going to push our buddies' FACs up the WBFAN list by having a VERY long FAC filled with nothing but prose nitpicking and no examination of sources, making it appear that we had a real review, when we didn't ... which is precisely where Mike and I diverge on the utility of his measure of the length of FACs ... a long FAC of prose nitpicks is useless. :) In other words, I see a window of opportunity, but not if you keep bouncing around Kentucky! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am girding my loins for another attempt at reviving strict source reviews. It'll last a little longer than the last few if I get some folks who have my back...Ealdgyth (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Found it: see here. I will have to go back and re-read it before commenting further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, back in 2016 or 2017 there was a conversation about exactly this point on WT:FAC. I will try and dig out the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
TPSs
If any talk page stalkers wanna help out...the following are articles I’d like to get to FAC that could use fine tooth combing...
Any help appreciated. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can add those to my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can comment on at least one or two of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I so miss Malleus... (sighs) Ealdgyth (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- No kidding :( Since I was AWOL when whatever got him went down, I do wish someone would email me the Cliff Notes on what happened to Mally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- TLDR version - Eric let himself be baited and lashed out once too often. And got some onerous restrictions placed on himself and then baited some more and the restrictions were used to ban him. He never did well with authority or with fools... Ealdgyth (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I always wonder if he just said f-it and did it on purpose, because he just got so sick of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- TLDR version - Eric let himself be baited and lashed out once too often. And got some onerous restrictions placed on himself and then baited some more and the restrictions were used to ban him. He never did well with authority or with fools... Ealdgyth (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- No kidding :( Since I was AWOL when whatever got him went down, I do wish someone would email me the Cliff Notes on what happened to Mally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I so miss Malleus... (sighs) Ealdgyth (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I should point out that I'd love to see The Holocaust reach featured status. @SlimVirgin: .... Ealdgyth (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can comment on at least one or two of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
In appreciation
|
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your recent boldly stated, well reasoned and stalwart comments at FAC. They are noted and appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
Best wishes for the holidays
.jpg)
|
Season's Greetings | |
| Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
Happy New Year!
|
Happy New Year! |
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Hi. It passed GA, but I can't see if that was you. Does the GA review need to be updated to reflect that? Sorry if you're busy and just haven't gotten to it yet. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't usually update teh form for such a simple review - the article was pretty much ready to go - but if you want, I can. It wont effect the status if I don't go back and fill in the little parameters with "aye" instead of "??". Or did I drop some other bit of paperwork? this diff is the pass, by the way. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No prob. I'll close it out. Just wanted to make sure it was you and there were no more i's to dot. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
TPSs...
I’m on the road and currently bouncing thru Indiana...it’s too bouncy to break out the laptop and am facing a persistent clueless newbie at Battle of Hastings. Help with getting through to them would be appreciated...I’ve tried to address the problems on the talk page but it’s getting nowhere..just edit warring to insert changes that are not in line with the sources already present...and of course the cries that the people reverting are “owning” the article. Help appreciated. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, happy that (from what I can see) you're finding more time to give to WP lately. Knowing little on the subject, I'm wondering what you might think about this. I would think that the White Ship article should be named something like White Ship Disaster (which is currently a redirect) since the article is centered around the ship's sinking, not the ship itself. Would this make sense, or am I perhaps missing something? Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mess with the folks who play with disaster articles - they like to name airline crashes after the flight that crashed. I'd check in with them. Medievalists usually just call it the sinking of the White Ship or whatever. When we're not saying something like "that time the old bastard Henry I got his comeuppence"... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Haha, "that time the old bastard Henry I got his comeuppence" sounds like the perfect name for a better place than here...! I would think any article title that makes the essence of the event clearer ("sinking of...", "disaster..." etc.) is better than the current, but I wouldn't know which is ideal, or how to tell. Do you know anywhere (or anyone) that may have further insight on this? Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Beaver
So I looked at other beaver books and here's what I found:
Beavers: Boreal Ecosystem Engineers (purchased) - 311 pages but is on beaver ecology, particularly environmental impacts, and may be better for the "Environmental impacts of beavers" article.
Beavers (2001) https://www.worldcat.org/title/beavers/oclc/488570292&referer=brief_results - Written from the perspective of the UK, a place beavers went extinct and have only recently been introduced.
Beavers: A Wildlife Handbook (Long, Kim. Johnson Nature Series.) - Appears to be written by a non-expert.
Eager: The Surprising, Secret Life of Beavers and Why They Matter - A popular book written by an environmental journalist whose not a biologist or naturalist.
The Eurasian Beaver Handbook: Ecology and Management of Castor Fiber - 208 pages but is on one species and may be better for that article.
I found other books with the same issues. I'm I going about this right? I purchased the Runtz book which you called pictorial but can it still be used. I also am already using the beaver entries in The Encyclopedia of Mammals and Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. I was thinking on could I using the books I have to cut down on the references to Müller-Schwarze & Sun (2003) by half. LittleJerry (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
You reverted my edit. The tool I used converts 10-digit ISBNs to recommended 13-digit ISBNs. This doesn't change the edition. Grimes2 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- wikipedia:ISBN. If an older work does not provide both, then use the ten digit isbn. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Robert of Bath
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert of Bath you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
84.108.7.2
Can the block for user:84.108.7.2 please be reset because she block evaded using user:79.182.57.223 . CLCStudent (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Helpful site
Search for books on this site.[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
User:1961ianolivermartin
Would you be inclined to let user:1961ianolivermartin know that https://www.ourfamtree.org is not a reliable source? They appear to be spamming this particular website over multiple articles. I have already requested they take https://www.ourfamtree.org to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
FAC nudge
I think you forgot to remove Pepi from the FAC listing. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
WP 20
 |
Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
On the Main page today: Vision pictured, and Arik Brauer in the news, as worked on and hoped for yesterday. I saw with amusement a promise to self to make BWV 1 a FA some day, on this day 2 years ago. Stress on "some day", to avoid stress. We plan to remove the recordings from the main article, as for BWV 4 before, just to keep you updated. I got a good new ref (jstor). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Evacuation KL Auschwitz
Why you dont need know it? Wodzisław it was main depot. Not just west? What is west? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swd (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- We're encyclopedia writers, not book writers. We need to keep in mind whether the information will be useful to the readers - and that we don't want to be undue in our coverage compared to the subject of the article. This means that sometimes information will go into a sub article - the name of the depot may be perfectly due in an article on the death marches from Auschwitz, but in an article covering the entire history of the camps that were part of the Auschwitz complex, this is distracting detail for the reader. It's a balancing act and in general the bigger the subject content of the article, the less minute details are needing to be included. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism § Short description proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, good gods. I'm not going to bother... I was just checking all the papal articles for those annoying bad pictures, and saw there were no short descriptions. But if it's going to be a big ass long discussion, I'll just not bother with the short descriptions. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, we'd rather someone not add 265 disparate random strings. thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's what is displaying now, but ... whatever. I'm done. Feel free to revert my additions also. I was just trying to get something there that can be controlled from wikipedia, rather than the disparate descriptions from Wikidata that aren't nearly so easy to deal with. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, we'd rather someone not add 265 disparate random strings. thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Robert of Bath
The article Robert of Bath you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Robert of Bath for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
Hey dude, I was wondering if you could go through Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song) at FAC, and say which ones need to be removed? It would be a pleasure to have an FA for coordinator help with the FA. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I’m not a dude, and one thing you can do for me is to go look at the three source reviews I did earlier today and all the other music FACs currently up and be preemptive and see what needs removing from them..it gets old having to deal with the same questionable sources all the time and my time is important to me...I’d really rather NOT be reading FACs for source reliability..I kinda would like to do more enjoyable things like review GAs or something. I’ve already devoted three hours to FACs today...Ealdgyth (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
|
Arbitration
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people
, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!
Apology
Hi. I am sorry for my aggression and passion at the nomination, if it bordered on rudeness toward you. I feel I had valid grievances, but I also feel I got carried away in moments. It is just an article, and this is just Wikipedia. I'm sorry. isento (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I’d write more but I’m currently bouncing across southwestern California and am stuck on my iPad until we stop for the night. I did not want you to think I hadn’t seen this and appreciated it. Will reply more in depth (with hopefully less typos) when we stop. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I was wondering if you could do a source review for Paper Mario: The Origami King? It has roughly half the amount of sources that League of Legends does, so I hope it won't be too annoying of a task. It's already received a spot check from ImaginesTigers. If you're busy, don't worry about it. Le Panini [🥪] 12:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- In the future comment, sorry about this request. I now know you don't like source reviews, I only aked because I saw you frequently doing them. I won't bother you about em'. Panini🥪 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"Blowup"
Ealdgyth, did you mean this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wanted that as a reminder to myself of how not to treat nominations, no matter how cranky and bitchy I get. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I guess you saw who weighed in at Iri’s talk ... speaking of reminders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
FAC question
Hello again. Apologies for this random message. While I'm retired right now, I have not entirely ruled out the possibility of returning sometime in the future as I do enjoy the whole research process involved with Wikipedia work. So, I just wanted some clarification on the high-quality source requirement for a featured article. I do not think there is anything wrong with you asking a nominator directly on how/why a source would be considered high-quality as it is good to encourage discussions.
I just wanted to make sure that my perception of what makes a high-quality source is accurate. When I look at a source, I focus on if there is evidence of editorial oversight, and then I see if it is put out by a reliable, well-known publisher and if it is a publication cited (and well-regarded) by other publications. Would that be a fair way to assess if something meets the high-quality mark? Apologies again, but I just wanted to make sure that I had at least somewhat of a solid understanding of this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- That’s actually what you need to do to meet just plain WP:RS. To look for high quality, you want the best available of the sources....so not just editorial control, but is the editor experienced in the field. Peer reviewed journals and the like are almost always high quality, but some fields don’t have that. So you want things that are widespread rather than a neighborhood newspaper. So if you are looking at newspapers...New York Times is high quality, the local weekly newspaper for my county is not high quality. Books ...something from a newly established publisher is less likely to meet high quality than something from Random House. Websites...you want well established with a good reputation. Anything that is marginal at WP:RSP is not likely to meet the high quality standard. Obviously there is some subjectivity but just having editorial boards is not enough. It’s the difference between the BBC and your local newscast or the difference between Variety as opposed to the gossip column of a local newspaper. You can judge book sources by whether or not they are widely held in many libraries, and what genre they are. Children’s books or things aimed at young adults are not likely to meet the high quality bar. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. To be clear, I never said that editorial oversight alone determines whether or not a source is high-quality. I merely referenced that a starting point. I disagree with your final statement. There are plenty of examples of children's and young adult literature that could met this high-quality bar as they have been covered by scholarly journals and other very reputable sources. As someone who has studied in that field, I do not find that assumption to be particularly beneficial, but that is a different conversation (and apologies if I sound rude or anything with this part as I do understand and appreciate your point). I just wanted to reach out to you to get a better understanding on the high-quality requirement. Thank you again for the help, and I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Whoops, I believe I misinterpreted the last part as being about items covering children's and young adult literature. I agree that neither would be appropriate (unless in very special scenarios) as sources themselves. Apologies for my misreading. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- (Driving-by) I'll just add that the age of a source can be an issue - that's crucial at WP:MEDRS, which wants everything to be within the last 5 years, but the general principal applies for everything. There is also a general preference for big overview books, rather than articles on some small aspect of the area. If you've looked at some of the student articles, you'll know the "Curse of JSTOR" - strings of little factoids run together without any degree of overall understanding of the topic. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think we will just have to agree to disagree there. I know for literature at least, there are smaller, more specialized articles and journals that I find extremely useful and in my opinion, those can be much more helpful and insightful than a survey book. I generally avoid student-published material for a different reason. I've used JSTOR for a while in school, and I've never heard of this curse before, but it is certainly interesting. Always interesting to learn something new. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, they are very useful, but after you've read the big book, assuming there is one, which there usually is. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Understood. This answers my questions. Thank you for both Ealdgyth and Johnbod for the responses. I wanted to make sure that I had at least some type of understanding on this particular topic. Thank you again, and I hope you both are staying safe and doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, they are very useful, but after you've read the big book, assuming there is one, which there usually is. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think we will just have to agree to disagree there. I know for literature at least, there are smaller, more specialized articles and journals that I find extremely useful and in my opinion, those can be much more helpful and insightful than a survey book. I generally avoid student-published material for a different reason. I've used JSTOR for a while in school, and I've never heard of this curse before, but it is certainly interesting. Always interesting to learn something new. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- (Driving-by) I'll just add that the age of a source can be an issue - that's crucial at WP:MEDRS, which wants everything to be within the last 5 years, but the general principal applies for everything. There is also a general preference for big overview books, rather than articles on some small aspect of the area. If you've looked at some of the student articles, you'll know the "Curse of JSTOR" - strings of little factoids run together without any degree of overall understanding of the topic. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Source reviews
Ealdgyth, I know you've been taking a lot of heat at FAC for source reviews (and I'm sorry if this adds onto that), but I'm genuinely confused, and somewhat surprised. In your source reviews at 2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election and 1985 World Snooker Championship final, if you did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliablity.
, how can you even label it a source review? Before I say anything else, I want to be clear that the reason I'm bringing this up is because I regularly do source reviews at FAC—see this recent one for example—and it's rather frustrating to click through every source, look at the formatting meticulously, and do spot-checks (for new nominators), only to see a supposably equivalent source review being done by a more experienced editor who copy and pastes a handful of sketchy links and then claims points for the Wikicup. I just don't get it, should you be labeling your contributions "reliabillity checks"? I don't know how this message will come across, but, sincerely, I'm not trying to attack or insult you, and I purposely came here, rather than posting more publicly on the FAC talk page. I'm just a bit baffled. Aza24 (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- because I’m checking every new FAC foe source reliability. There is no way I can do everything and have any other time to do anything. When I wasn’t doing even this much, stuff was getting thru. Now, I’m going to turn this around...how can anyone review for prose when the sources hasn’t been checked yet. If sources are found to be unreliable, the text is going to change, so what good was the prose review? And yes, you ca,e across as very confrontational and needlessly so, I’d add. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I’ll add, what you see as hastily pasting some links is anything but. I read every source. I go to every website that I don’t know we’ll. I check other pages in those sites. I look at teir about pages and anything about the authors and editors. I check Wikipedia pages on them and the authors. For books and journals if I don’t know the author or published I check worldcat for holdings and I look at other works by those publishers and authors. That sort of involved work is the foundation of a source check for reliability and is the important part, not whether the formatting is correct. To be frank, for a number of years, the actual check of reliability was not done rigorously at FAC, so too many folks saw a source check as all about formatting...it’s not, it’s hard work, and I’m only able to find the time for what I’m doing. I can leave the other bits to folks who were getting that part done before I stepped back into doing checks. I’m sorry you think I’m lazy, but tough, each of those source reviews takes a good bit of time, and that doesn’t count dealing with replies. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- final bit...I’m checking every FACs sources...I only make a source review for when there are issues. Most articles don’t have issues so I don’t put anything at the FAC, but I’m still there checking all the sources. Again, the actual meeting of the high quality criteria is the major thing, and one reason I’m trying to get to them early is to avoid wasted effort on the part odpf other reviewers....and if someone comes along and does a spot check later and looks at the reliability again, great. We have more than one prose review...I’d love it if we had more than one source review, it would mean more stuff was caught. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- sorry if that’s brusque, it’s 5am and I’m just waking up while on the road. I’ve been on the road with my husband since mid December and it’s been a great trip with hubby the truck driver, but I’m putting up with limited internet, crappy roads, and winter weather. And of course, lots of people assuming I’m lazy ...which, as I hope I showed above, my source reviews aren’t just slapping up a few links. When I review something like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kids See Ghosts (album)/archive2, I look at all 158 references. For Don't Start Now, there are 347 references, and yes, I try to look at everyone. But it’s great if someone else goes over them later because I can miss stuff. We don’t claim it’s duplicated effort for multiple reviewers to go over the same prose, so having someone else check the references is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing, so it catches any things missed. And if I see any formatting errors, I’ll point them out if I notice them, but that’s not my stronsuit...knowing sourcing is. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- OK–thank you. Though WP:AGF only goes so far, and I (and others, if the need for your self-imposed punching bag persona has proven anything...!) can only assume so much. As in, it really does look like, from the outside, you just copy and paste a few links. Since I’m sure you know the coords well (and well, you're literally one of them) it may be easy for them to know you’re doing more than what appears, but the combination of saying you
did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliability.
and not having a caveat like "if spent time going through every source and these were the ones that...", makes me unsurprised you've received pushback. An example: Your efforts seem to have inspired similar source reviews, though the user in question is not understanding the work you do behind the scenes, and has brought up rather ridiculous queries about well established sources such as the Hindustan Times and various products of The Times Group. - I'm sorry this came up as confrontational, but I needed to understand myself what was going on; I originally saw some of the usual chaos occurring on the FAC talk, and both your name and source reviews were brought up. Since I've read through the Middle Ages article and have had positive interactions with you in the past, I found myself on your side by default, but was concerned when I stumbled across the actual content of your source reviews.
- In general, I really appreciate your thorough focus on high-quality reliable sources, and I can agree that even in my short time here, I've seen a lot of unjust exceptions made or source-quality looked over. But I'm worried that when you don't check for formatting, you're solidifying 1c, but leaving 2c assessed; and by calling it a "source review", most people will think nothing of it. If you need an extra set of eyes to help with this, I'm always happy to do so. It is early where I am too, so if I have something to add, I may come back like you have... again, sorry that is came off as confrontational or interrogatory, I really have nothing but respect for you and your work... though I'm still shamelessly waiting for a William II FA... Aza24 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- OK–thank you. Though WP:AGF only goes so far, and I (and others, if the need for your self-imposed punching bag persona has proven anything...!) can only assume so much. As in, it really does look like, from the outside, you just copy and paste a few links. Since I’m sure you know the coords well (and well, you're literally one of them) it may be easy for them to know you’re doing more than what appears, but the combination of saying you
- Found two source reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1/archive1 and it seems to have worked out well. A clear evaluation of both 1c & 2c. I wonder if this kind of approach will be more natural in the proposed first stage of Sandy's FAC proposal (were it to pass). Have reread my earlier comment in some embarrassment, and since I'v already apologized, I may just be badgering now. Sorry to bother. Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| I'm not a huge participant around FA but I saw your "Stepping down" comment at WT:TFA and I browse WP:FAC often enough to know what you do there. Thank you for the exceptional quality and quantity of work you've been doing at those venues, and everywhere else. The FAC source reviews are hugely valuable even though I'm sure they can feel painful to all parties at times. — Bilorv (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC) |
Good article drive notice
 | Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)