Wikipedia

User talk:ScottDavis/Archive 16

< User talk:ScottDavis
Latest comment: 5 years ago by ScottDavis in topic thanks
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aboriginal peoples of South Australia has been accepted

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Aboriginal peoples of South Australia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Alitya Rigney

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Sure, the article was much smaller then. I've re-assessed it to Start. --Canley (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Great job with the article though! --Canley (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Institution of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Long (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) 09:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Australian Country Party logo (March 2016).png

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Country Party logo (March 2016).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Halemaʻumaʻu

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Scott! A week ago I proposed moving Halemaumau Crater to Halemaʻumaʻu Crater, the spelling used by the USGS. In the absence of objections I just tried to make that move, but was told I don't have permission. Maybe I need the help of an admin? Thanks, Awien (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Awien: I would be happy to help. Where is the move proposal/discussion? --Scott Davis Talk 02:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: I didn't open any RfC or anything, I simply added my suggestion to the existing discussion at Talk:Halemaumau_Crater#Rename_Halemaumau_crater. Cheers, Awien (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Awien: I think you need to do a "proper" move request, not tack a new comment onto the end of a ten-year-old discussion that resulted in moving the article to its present title. I think you have a valid argument for moving it to use the okina characters, but that unanswered comment isn't sufficient for a reversal of a discussed move. Be precise about whether there should be a capital C as well please (because I don't know). --Scott Davis Talk 12:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I have submitted the page move request --Scott Davis Talk 14:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for initiating that. Aloha, Awien (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Some more Wikidata issues

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

HI ScottDavis,

I refer previous discussions. I am getting notifications that articles that I have started are being added to Wikidata. In some cases, I have gone to the Wikidata site to discover problems as the following:

  1. Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park (Q21937498) - the problem with this particular wikidata entry is that there are two marine protected areas called "Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park" - one is managed by the Australian Government and the other is managed by the SA Government (i.e. Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park (state waters)). When I first checked, the wikidata entry appears to be a mash-up of the two protected areas. It is obvious that the article was not read as matters such as the following were not understood - there are two jurisdictions and there are more than one IUCN category. I just looked again and found that there are now two entries with the same name (the new one is Q55364484) with the latest being written by an editor from Tasmania (I think). I will contact this editor about this matter.
  2. Scorpion Springs Conservation Park - this and two other associated articles (please refer links in article) are about protected areas that were abolished in 2004 and added to Ngarkat Conservation Park. For your information, I wrote the articles because there is a lot of material, because these articles add historical depth to the collection of articles about the SA protected areas system, and because this make an upgrade of the Ngarkat Conservation Park article easier. The problem is that wikidata entry does not advise that the conservation park was abolished 14 years and implies that it still exists. This is not helped by links to the robot-written articles on the Cebauno and the Swedish Wikipedias when translated, discuss the conservation park in the present tense.

Please reply here if you wish to reply. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Cowdy001: I don't think it was me who created the Wikidata items. I'm not quite sure what kind of response you are expecting from me. In the recent discussion on WP:AWNB about newspapers on Wikidata, I was clearly supporting making more wikidata items for things that are not quite the same, rather than combining them because they are almost the same. While I have some experience in data modelling, I have not yet taken the time to be really familiar with Wikidata. I think it is possible to annotate statements with start and end dates and references, and also to record successors or enclosing areas if that is appropriate for the parks. Ideally, Wikitree would either implicitly or by bot have an inferencing engine that would derive inverse relations for things like successor, but I have not noticed that it actually does. --Scott Davis Talk 13:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I've added P576 (dissolved etc) and P156 (followed by) statements to wikidata:Q21935836. Hopefully that helps. --Scott Davis Talk 14:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Louise Milligan

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Thank you for your reply about (hopefully) the restoration of the Louise Milligan article. I don't normally tackle Wikipedia from this location so it was a bit of a delightful fluke to discover your message. I hope to participate on this in the near future but I've never had an account and, unfortunately, my commitments at the moment mean I'm unable to work on any of this until later in the year. I previously did a deep dive into the history of this article and I could have sworn that there was a previous restoration and deletion, but maybe my memory is playing tricks on me.

Rant follows (please excuse): As to her notability, any considered research or assessment can easily show that this was never in doubt. This is now even more clear following the publication by Melbourne University Press of her multi-award winning book on Cardinal Pell, her high profile evidence at his criminal trial, and her multiple features for the ABC's 7.30 and Four Corners, making her one of Australia's most notable journalists. She has had a long and distinguished career in broadcast journalism with nightly ratings measured in 5 & 6 figures, yet any one of these millions of viewers, who are all eyewitnesses to the hard evidence of her notability, and who might chose to check her on Wikipedia, would find nothing. This makes a joke of the project's primary goal of being comprehensive. Any check of the published ratings figures (e.g. Neilsen, etc.) and trade publications (e.g. Mumbrella, etc.) would have confirmed her stature. The fact that she and many other broadcasters do not have Wikipedia articles, or have had them deleted, points to either a flaw in the policy on notability or a flaw in its interpretation and administration. This doctrinaire application of policies and 'deletionism' are two of the plagues that afflict Wikipedia. The project urgently needs to substantially reform and re-invent itself or it risks becoming increasingly moribund and potentially emulating the sad decline experienced by some other crowdsourced projects, e.g. DMOZ. This fate is increasingly likely if some Wikipedia editors choose to casually piss on the hard and considered work of their fellow editors by deleting it.

Those editors who voted for Milligan's deletion had clearly never checked the facts and took the lazy man's way out of the issue. I called this out as an issue of systemic bias because Milligan's notability as an Australian broadcast journalist was never tackled seriously by those editors who voted for deletion. As evidenced by the 'Article for Deletion' discussions, her crime was apparently that she was a mere broadcast journalist from the wrong country/hemisphere. The relevance of her gender was, I suspect, just one more compounding factor. At least the Wikimedia Foundation has been honest about its problems with women, both in articles and as editors, and is at least nominally committed to correcting this and other systemic bias.

As for yet another example of deletion that should be noted, the disgraceful removal of the article on Josh Bornstein (including at least one wild 'AfD' claim that it might be some sort of unwarranted self-promotion) would, I suspect, have been far less likely if he had lived in the Anglosphere first world on the other side of the equator. If you would like another example of the sub-par treatment that local journalists get from some Wikipedia editors (even local ones) take a look at the shabby state of the articles for Laura Tingle and far too many others. We have at least one local editor pushing his personal 'point of view' who can't help himself when he reads the latest personal smear against the nominated enemies of the 'hard right' by shamelessly partisan hacks including blogger/columnist Andrew Bolt and various other minions of the Murdoch Empire, etc. Please read the litany of "Political views" sections this editor has inserted into the Tingle article and far too many others using these far-from-neutral sources. Be amazed by the cherry-picked factoids lovingly harvested and inserted from the partisan groves of bias and bigotry. These are wonders to behold; pity they violate some of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, thanks for your interest. Cheers! 49.177.186.134 (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@49.177.186.134: creating an account doesn't take too many minutes, then you will have your own space to work on those articles from wherever you are. Josh Bornstein went through WP:PROD not WP:AFD, so WP:RFU can be used to get it back fairly quickly, then you can work on making the article suitable - a few references (it had none) that show he has a real claim to notability. If you think the guidelines for notability of journalists and lawyers are too strict, then you will need to demonstrate some experience in editing before you are taken seriously in starting a discussion to change the guidelines. That's true in any group - a newcomer has to establish credibility before they can introduce big changes. As for the Louise Milligan article, it went through AFD here. Several people indicated why the article should not remain, and the only person who !voted to keep it was somewhat lukewarm. Nobody stepped up to attempt to address the concerns. Someone had tried five months before the AFD, and the nominator had a go immediately before it was listed, but the article received zero edits during the period of consideration for deletion. Both articles need improvements to claim and cite that the subjects are notable in themselves, as notability is not inherited from the fact they have been associated with high-profile cases. --Scott Davis Talk 13:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
PS - Josh Bornstein has been undeleted while I was typing, so you are already welcome to improve that one before it risks going through WP:AFD. --Scott Davis Talk 13:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
(I saw your discussion and decided to at least take care of the Bornstein article - definitely could use some work as ScottDavis said so we don't have a repeat.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Beaumont children

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ScottDavis, its been stated over the years that whoever kidnapped the Beaumonts was sexually targeting Jane and Arnna, because that's how non-family kidnappings of female children usually work - sex/molestation driven. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: That is possible, but it was not stated in the source cited for that sentence, and does not address why Grant would have been included. We do not know the motives of the perpetrator(s) nor what actually happened, and probably will not unless/until the bodies or survivors are found. At least one of the people listed under "Possible suspects" doesn't have a history of only targeting girls. --Scott Davis Talk 10:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

AGF

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

prevents me from saying what I think of the editors on wp:id - very obvious they havent a clue. Maybe its the old joke that we are the 52nd state of the US - the article is clearly about someone in the US and they use an oz picture - thanks for referring the issue to me. My big problem is if they want to get back to me, my rusty parts of the brain will probably have me reaching for google translate to understand the response. (if Any) JarrahTree 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I didn't think too hard about the countries involved - I thought a photo with 2018 in the filename was a good clue it was not a person who died in 1989 aged 80! The photo on the English article about the American guy is apparently not suitable for Commons under some excessively strict interpretation of US copyright. The original upload to Commons of the politician photo used the filename Gardner.jpg. On English Wikipedia that is a redirect to Hy Gardner.jpg after a page move in 2015. Thanks for getting involved. --Scott Davis Talk 13:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
no problem - we just recently lost a really good in country english speaking admin - in the Indonesian project - and he would have been brilliant - I am rusty with my language - wouldnt even get into a NAATI exam at basic level :( - but slly enough to cause havoc for anyone wanting to pull a swifty like that edit in wp id. JarrahTree 13:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_13#Newcastle_railway_station,_Sydney and I have replied there. The bugs in the templates concerned have concerned me ever since I joined Wiki four years ago and initially I was told that things just worked that way. Recently I came another example of it which I did not understand and with the assistance of someone who is more experienced in wiki template coding than I am, I believe that I can simplify these templates considerable and at the same time reduce the maintenance required by using default values of existing articles in nearly all cases but that is where these incorrect redirects cause problems as it is sometimes not possible for the template to know which is a valid one and which is not, hence I am keen to get rid of them. I can get them to all work as defaults but that would some pointers to such places as Goulburn railway station, Sydney which does not concern those commenting from the States but is considered incorrect to Australians.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the red links you referred to elsewhere, in next and previous stations in New South Wales station articles, they are correct. Would you prefer them to stay as red links or do you think some code should be added to suppress a link and only show the name. Someone else I mentioned this to, was against suppressing the red link.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fleet Lists: In my opinion, it should either be a red link, or a blue link to an article that mentions the railway (eg the town/locality) if the station is/was not significant enough to have an article in its own right. Some rural localities in SA have articles that mention two or three former stops as the boundaries were formalised with less "places" some time since the railways ceased to be important. A red link is an invitation to write something, black text is a dead end. A missing station on the railway would have two red links to it (next and previous) unless there is more than one in a row missing. I hope I have addressed your question adequately. --Scott Davis Talk 09:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Members of the South Australian Legislative Council, 1888–1891, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Exploration in South Australia - Confusion between George Imlay and Alexander Imlay

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Scott I refer to the entry for John Hill (explorer) and those of George Imlay and Alexander Imlay, and the changes which were made to the Wikipedia entry which substitute GEORGE for ALEXANDER.

There is no doubt that GEORGE is correct, not Alexander. Most contemporary accounts of the expedition of Hill and Imlay do not reveal which particular Imlay brother participated, just 'Dr Imlay', which has hitherto led to confusion among some historians because all three brothers - Peter, George, Alexander - were medical doctors. Modern historical accounts have mostly assumed, without assigning any reason, that the Imlay brother involved was Dr Alexander Imlay. They are clearly incorrect. The uncertainty is resolved by a letter written in Adelaide by John Morphett on 2 February 1838, just a few weeks after the expedition, to the editor of The Colonist newspaper in Sydney stating conclusively that, 'Dr GEORGE Imlay ... has been for a short time sojourning with us' after delivering livestock and had just made an excursion to the Murray. See The Colonist, 7 March 1838, page 2.

In the absence of better/other contemporary evidence I trust this clarifies things and puts this question to bed. Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaarenmax19 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kaarenmax19: Thank you for picking that up. I was surprised when I read your message as I was thinking "yes, I knew that". It looks like I used the ADB reference (which as you said, is wrong) on 9 Oct on John Hill (explorer), and it was a day or two later that I read the article in The Colonist (I am currently the last editor of the transcript, "15 days ago"), so the George Imlay article contained the right version, and it is not mentioned in Alexander Imlay. Cheers. --Scott Davis Talk 09:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  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-en wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Australian colonial election, 1881, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, ScottDavis. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Map of wind farms in South Australia?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Scott, I made a map of the wind farms currently operating/under construction/planning in SA. Check out my sandbox page to see it (at the bottom). Source is (https://en.luquay.com/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_South_Australia#Table) . Do you think this deserves to be there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondIIIXX (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC) DiamondIIIXX

@DiamondIIIXX: I'm not sure - thank you for trying. I think a map is generally helpful, so trying to weigh up in my mind the simplicity of a location map on the page against the utility of the OSM map linked from the {{kml}} box in the top corner. My thoughts (in no planned order):
  • The size you have made it (600px) would probably dominate the page, so might need to be a bit smaller.
  • Your map colour codes the operational status which the OSM map does not
  • OSM highlights the name in the list when the mouse hovers over a point
  • OSM provides a link from the list to the right point in the generating table.
  • On your map, green and cyan are hard to tell apart, and reading the colours requires the viewer to read the name of a colour and recognise the matching dot colour which could be hard for some people
  • The OSM map pans and zooms
  • It "would be nice" if either of them could show either the individual towers or at least the boundary/extent of each wind farm at useful scales (eg where one Hallett farm ends and the next begins). OSM will show the towers at zoom level 15, but by then even on a large monitor the wind farms extend off the screen at each end.
Try putting it in, perhaps at size 300 or 400px instead of 600px and see how it looks. --Scott Davis Talk 06:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: I was frustrated with the OSM map because it pulls everything from the table, including cancelled sites. I think the problem is balancing the size of the map with the size on the page, as well as the size of the dots. With large dots, wind farms close together are hard to distinguish, but makes most sites easier to see. Whereas with smaller dots, each farm is more easily distinguished, but also much more difficult to see (without zooming in). I also think the problem of not being able to distinguish green and cyan would be resolved with larger dots. Any ideas? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondIIIXX: I agree with the problem of all the dots being the same on the OSM map, including the cancelled ones. I have not looked in to whether it is possible to get the OSM map to show categories (either by using several tables or coding the coord template somehow). One option I could think of is that once a project is definitely not going ahead, it might be removed from the table anyway. I'm not sure if things that have never existed and never will exist get included in any other table-lists. That "solution" doesn't separate the proposals that aren't committed to construction though.
For the colours, I'd try a few things:
  • Dots without a black border
  • More contrast between each colour (including brightness)
  • Shade the background of the text labels so people don't have to decide what shade represents "green", "blue" etc.
It looks like {{Maplink}} has some pretty clever options near the bottom of the description page, but it might need more data adding to Wikidata or OSM to make it work right, I'm not sure. If it does, that would make maintenance a lot more challenging, but could solve some problems if it only mapped wind farms that have wikipedia pages and wikidata items that include the status and the coordinates.
Sorry I'm not helping much - my life is pretty busy at the moment, and I have another wiki-project part-done (former districts and other history of the South Australian Legislative Council) that needs to be finished before I get too involved in another new thing. --Scott Davis Talk 13:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: I had an idea. What if we don't need to have each dot be distinct, and they are indicative. Since they are not being labelled anyway, it might be better served as an "indicative" map as to where most farms are built? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondIIIXX: That might work, and makes sense anyway as some farms are bigger than others. Our list has Coober Pedy on it which is miniscule, and it's not always clear if the bigger farms should be treated in aggregate or parts (Hallett - one or four, Sonwtown - one, two or three). Almost every one in SA with a Wikipedia article now also has an OSM relation with bidirectional links to/from Wikidata. When the caches and mirrors catch up, that might change what is possible too. At the moment, the dot on each wind farm's own page infobox map uses the coordinates on Wikidata, which are not always helpful for linear features or multipoints that are strung out. --Scott Davis Talk 23:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Health-Australia-Party-Logo.png

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Health-Australia-Party-Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Arbitration

  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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Trouble with Trams in Adelaide

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would you mind helping out with Trams in Adelaide. I think the IP editor in question has fulfilled all the criteria and more for a block on this one and it would be more constructive to block than warn him/her for the 100th time. Thanks again. Donama (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Two weeks this time. --Scott Davis Talk 03:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Australian Better Families Party

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Scott

Thank you for setting up a page for the Australian Better Families party.

I am writing to you to confirm some details regarding our political position and motivations.

I have noticed some errors that I have corrected a couple of times only to then have the page edited again.

We see ourselves as a Family Rights organisation that is conservative in our political views.

I hope this helps to clarify our position and in turn, see the position of the ABF party reflected correctly in the page.

Regards

Leith Erikson Australian Better Families Party 1300254414 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.64.45 (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Leith Erikson:/49.197.64.45. If there are particular things you want changed, please click on "Talk" at the top of that page, then click the + to add a new section (as you did here). Please also sign your comment with four ~ symbols at the end (or the signature button in the edit bar (3rd one from the left). You will find that the article linked from Family rights is probably not what you are thinking of, even if readers find the Australia link and click through to Australian family law. It would be helpful to provide some newspaper articles (maybe the ABC elections websites?) or other sources not directly connected to the party to describe what it is about. It is better to write the text for an article first, then summarise it into the infobox, rather than trying to get the nfobox right wthout adding to the text. Cheers, --Scott Davis Talk 07:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.luquay.com/wiki/User_talk:Australianbetterfamilies#Welcome%21

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Scott, thank you for contacting me in relation to the Australian Better Families party. I am concerned about edits to the party page - that it seems you created for the party but have no political affiliation with - that present the party as being a Right Wing Mens Rights Group.

How may I take control or what steps might I take in order to prevent defamation and misrepresentation from occurring?

The Australian Better Families party is not a Men's Rights organisation. As you will see, users have been misrepresenting the content on the page. It is a political organisation with open minded and Conservative Australian Family ideologies and values.

Thank you.

03:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Australianbetterfamilies (talk)

@Australianbetterfamilies and Leith Erikson: You are right, I have no political affiliation with any party, but an an interested citizen and active Wikipedia editor. Please note Wikipedia:Username policy, in particular Wikipedia does not want user names that look like they may belong to an organisation not an individual, nor should an individual generally operate more than one account.
You may not "take control" of the page - see Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
Content contributed to Wikipedia must be free content. See the warning at the bottom of the edit page.
I know nothing of either organisation abbreviated ABF, but the Brotherhood web pages suggest it supports the Better Party. If there is no connection between the two organisations, please suggest a link to a news story or similar that says so. As you have a close connection to the party, it would be better if you proposed changes on the talk page rather than make edits directly to it. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
This looks like a lot of rules, but it is these kinds of rules that make Wikipedia a place that many people look to for neutral information. --Scott Davis Talk 05:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This astroturfing effort is interesting considering some of the media they've done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

5000 challenge and flags

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think it’s fair to say there are no rules on this. Personally I’ve used the Australian flag whenever the topic isn’t exclusively about one state, but feel free to go wild and have 2 flags or whatever you like. Kerry (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kerry. I'll leave them as Australia. The two articles in question were the Northern Gas Pipeline and the Bonaparte Basin which span the NT/Qld and NT/WA borders, but both count as national interests anyway. --Scott Davis Talk 04:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

for help and things in 2018, have a very safe and happy christmas and new year JarrahTree 04:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you too. Merry Christmas. --Scott Davis Talk 04:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Minister's Photos

Hi Scott, Thank you for your message re the Minister's photos. I am connected to the Government office who arranged the photos, and do have permission to publish them. I have emailed the address as a representative of the office who owns the images. Thanks, Sam

Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottDavis/Archive_16&oldid=978178817"