→Administrators' newsletter – November 2019: Editor of the Week template
|
→Editor of the Week: Congrats!!!!
|
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week''' |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week''' |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of |
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
[[User: |
[[User:Newslinger]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]: |
||
:I nominate Beetstra to be Editor of the Week for their herculean efforts to curtail [[WP:SPAM|spam]] and unwanted content on Wikipedia. Beestra's stewardship of the spam [[WP:SPB|blacklist]] and [[WT:WHITELIST|whitelist]] over the years has been instrumental to safeguarding Wikipedia against [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]]. Beetstra also maintains two anti-spam [[WP:BOT|bots]]: {{np|COIBot}}, which monitors edits that may be affected by [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]], and {{np|XLinkBot}}, which reverts the addition of links to [[WP:QS|questionable sources]] that are frequently abused. On the content side, Beetstra has contributed to the [[WP:CHEMS|Chemicals]], [[WP:CHEM|Chemistry]], and [[WP:PHARM|Pharmacology]] WikiProjects with {{np|CheMoBot}}, which audits the integrity of data in [[MOS:IBX|infoboxes]]. Overall, Beetstra has made a big difference in Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|reliability]], ensuring that our articles are a trustworthy resource for our readers. |
|||
:{{{nominationtext}}} |
|||
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: |
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: |
||
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre> |
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre> |
VOTE OPPOSE No signs that the Arbitration Committee is in any form willing to change for the better (as expected). For years we have been complaining about anchoring, about railroading, about bias. When someone comes before ArbCom, ArbCom has to sanction, no matter how feeble the evidence is. They do not care to properly present the evidence that they make decisions on. They do not care whether the editor has been trying to improve since. And when an editor comes again in front of ArbCom, they will just increase the sanctions - they have been here before so they must be guilty. It is becoming more and more clear that there is no will, nor possibility to improve. This institute should be abandoned - NOW |
Welcome to my talk page.
Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
You may want to have a look at the subjects
Dirk Beetstra
|
| ||||
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAMorWP:COIN. |
Responding
I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me. ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.
My view in a nutshell: Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines). Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:
If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.
The answer in a nutshell If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:ELorWT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1].
Reliable sources I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong. Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.
Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}}or{{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog. Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template). |
|
|
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}}or{{ygm}} template.
Hello Sir,
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It seems to me as if this is now more or less OK even if there seems to be rather too much emphasis on recent auctions. Thanks, btw, for pointing to the links under references. They had bothered me too and I had already started working on them when you came along. I think I have now sorted them out. (They were not in fact external links but actual references to the details in the article itself. Once upon a time, this was a pretty standard approach to referencing.) As you seem to be a pretty competent admin and keen to support coverage of women and women's works, I was wondering if you could help me out with another problem I have been asked to deal with. One of the keen new contributors to Women in Red has asked me if she can write an article on Clarice Phelps. As you may remember, the biography was deleted on more than one occasion causing some pretty violent reactions from the press. There have however been important new developments as you will see from her nomination for the IUPAC Periodic Table and "ORNL engineer the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element". For me, these really seem to confirm her notability. Just as with Sakuntala we could create a completely new article but it has been suggested that in regard to Draft:Clarice E. Phelps we should "request a lifting of the salting". As I have absolutely no experience with salting or desalting I would appreciate your assistance. Otherwise you could perhaps let me know whether it is still permissible to create a completely new article along the lines of Sakuntala.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you available for recall?Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to mention this comment I inserted into a discussion in reaction to a comment of yours in case you missed my insertion. I wish I had a solution to suggest, but I don't. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking to see if it was OK to create the article on Penny Von Eschen recently deleted as being created by a blocked user. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
![]()
|
![]() |
Editor of the Week | |
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Newslinger submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 06:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]