User talk:Deryck Chan/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hong Kong elections[edit]

Is there any possible way to stop User:Lmmnhn to removing link "Centrism#Hong Kong" from various related article? Thanks. UU (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @UU: Yes, you two should talk directly. Deryck C. 08:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hello, Deryck Chan. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Anon comment[edit]

Why you give star to User:Lmmnhn? He blocks almost all other users from editing Hong Kong legislative election, 2016, Template:Hong Kong political parties, Localism in Hong Kong, Localism camp and etc. Are you promoting dictatorship of certain user????? 203.160.68.87 (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Happy First Edit Day, Deryck Chan, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malia Bouattia article[edit]

Hey, last time we had a dispute over this article you ended it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malia_Bouattia#black.3F...

We have the same dispute again. A user changed the article from what is was. Can you please help? Phantom147 (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a student politician who identifies as black based on North African heritage; as the black British article shows, black often has a wider usage in the UK than the US, and can encompass North Africans. ("The term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain.") She is referred to be almost every mainstream media source to comment on her race as black. Therefore we should describe her as black, while also citing the minority opinion--from a couple media stories--that questions her race. After all, our job is not to "seek truth" but to reflect the opinion of reliable sources.
User: Phantom147 keeps deleting all references to her being black. He says he is committed to doing this regardless of what sources say because "I think we should reflect what is true even if RS are false." (See 2) Defensible though his position on Bouattia's race may be, this is obvious OR; and Phantom's commitment to OR is even more problematic given his desire to use OR to disparage a BLP. Phantom refuses to listen to citation of the rules and thus I have the unhappy task of reporting him here.
Basically, she is black within a longstanding and salient, though controversial, definition of black in the UK (one that has been cited in innumerable RS). It's not our job to disagree with that definition. Our job is to reflect the opinions of RS, which I've done in my edits to the article (these edits give more weight to the majority view that she is black, but also place heavy weight on the one RS that has questioned her racial identity). Steeletrap (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately for you, the last time we had this issue, my opinion won. So it seems you are wrong, again. That's the end of the it. "He says he is committed to doing this regardless of what sources say" - I am committed because you are editing something under DISPUTE, I also had my opinion WIN last time it was resolved. This is rude and ridiculous. You can try keep editing and i will keep reverting your edits until this is settled. That's just how it is. Deal with it or stop. Phantom147 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the end of it. Opinions don't "win" here and consensus can change. In the matter of a biography of a living person, moreover, we default to the position which does the least harm to the article subject, and in this case, that's accepting the reliably-sourced statement that she is black. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFD close[edit]

Hi Deryck Chan. I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 13#File:ChicagoBlackhawksLogo.svg so I want to thank you for doing that. There are not a lot of admins who work FFD closing a discussion, so things tend to get backed up a bit. I do have a question about your close, however. You posted that there was no consensus for removing the logo from Melbourne Whalers for NFCC reasons, but the nominator Stefan2, myself and BigrTex each argued that the file shouldn't be used in that particular article for NFCC reasons, specifically for WP:NFCC#8 reasons; so, it does seem as if there was a consensus established for not allowing the file's use per NFCC. Is there some reason you felt differently? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Well, DJSasso and TonyTheTiger disagreed. As far as I can see, there is no consensus to declare this as an NFCC violation so I didn't enact any administrative action. But I saw that the discussion raised points about the editorial usefulness of having the logo so I would like to leave it open as an editorial decision independent of FFD. Deryck C. 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understand and thank you for further clarifying things. It just seems to me that the two "keep" votes were examples of WP:OBVIOUSLY and did not provide any real explanation as to how the file's use satisfies WP:NFCCP, or more specifically the nominators concerns about WP:NFCC#8 and No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I felt that the both sides provided sufficient detail that this is a genuine disagreement over policy interpretation. After all, "contextual significance" is subjective and I'm wary of enacting an administrative action without either a strong majority or an overriding demonstration of harm. I encourage you to go down the editorial route and rewrite that section of the article so that the logo image is not needed. Deryck C. 15:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furcadia[edit]

  • Hi Deryck, what about File:FurcShot2008.jpg‎ and File:FurcShot2008B.jpg? I saw no proof of their stated GFDL license, and we would need OTRS permission direct from a representative of the developer if they were to license it as such. czar 17:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: The image description page and the uploader's user page are sufficient declaration that the relevant licensing requirements have been satisfied. The images were uploaded in 2008 when OTRS submissions were not mandatory for content donations that had previously been published elsewhere. So I see no reason to reject the existing GFDL declaration unless we have compelling evidence of the contrary. Deryck C. 08:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What precedent are you using to say that a user page declaration is sufficient for the re-licensing of external content? Anyone can claim to be anyone on-wiki... And even if we do take that the uploader is Asikainen without off-wiki confirmation of identity (such as via official email, which is at least widely seen as external confirmation), what proof is there that Asikainen represents the developer? The article says that he wrote the client/server and left the project in 2009. Permission usually comes from the game's director/designer/PR person or if need be, artist. I would have mentioned this in the discussion had I seen the reply. I can add it there if you prefer to reopen/relist rather than hashing it out here. czar 11:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials at the time of its upload [1] required declaration of authorship, licensing, previous venue of publication, and contact details in case further verification was needed. The onus was on editors challenging the donation's authenticity (or authority) to verify it. A potentially easier way out would be to say "we don't need this image anymore" and delete it (since it hasn't been used on the article itself for some time). Deryck C. 11:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
commons:Commons:Grandfathered old files is a related guideline for Commons but it has a slightly different timeframe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many other 2008 files require OTRS verification years later. Okay, so let's say I'm challenging that Asikainen is the copyright holder, as I mentioned above—that we have no proof that Asikainen had the copyright delegation (esp. to the art assets, layout, if those were produced independently), though he was part of the dev team. What more evidence do you need of this than what I elaborated above? My issue was that of actual rights to release. (And the shots would have educational use so I have no argument that we don't need them anymore.) czar 16:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first step is to establish the correct right-owner, if you think Asikainen doesn't have the permissions. Tell them that Asikainen had donated the screenshots in 2008 (quoting the image description) on behalf of the copyright holder of the game. Let them know that you're going through old donations to check their copyright permissions and ask them if Asikainen's donation was okay. Deryck C. 16:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already did, haven't heard back—their mail appears to be handled by volunteers. In the meantime, without any clear indication either at the time or now that Asikainen holds the copyright to the artwork/design/product, I think the case is clear. czar 18:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume from your grammar that you think "the case is clear that Asikainen didn't have the right to donate the image". I disagree, because that would be an assumption of bad faith. Deryck C. 20:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the case that Asikainen holds the copyright is more unlikely than the case that Asikainen does not. Assuming good faith is about assuming that editors mean well, and I do. It doesn't apply to identity or copyright claims (for that we're closer to trust-but-verify). I've deleted a fair amount of claims by people who thought they owned the copyright but simply misunderstood. Some people think they have the right to relicense just because they worked on a piece but that's not how copyright goes. If you're not amenable to hearing me out, at the very least the ticket should be relisted so another admin can give a third opinion. czar 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted. Deryck C. 08:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Russian cyber conflict[edit]

Request of 2016 US Russian cyber conflict and history. Rick (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian US cyber conflict article[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 US Russian cyber conflict - we decided to not have an article on it for now. Deryck C. 13:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I read the deletion log. However, there are dangling references to the deleted article. Please fix them. David Spector (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David spector: I think I've removed all incoming links [2] after seeing your "recreation" of the article. Is that what you mean by "dangling references"? Deryck C. 14:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is what I wanted. David Spector (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Russian cyber conflict deletion?[edit]

Thanks for a copy of the deleted 2016 US Russian cyber conflict to my personal space at User:Rjlabs/2016_US_Russian_cyber_conflict.

Deletion was swift, in my opinion "fix" would have been the better option vs. "trash".

The article was a stub, a work in progress, and marked as such. Most of the early criticism and "votes" to delete revolved around notability. The entire notability argument evaporated within a mater of weeks, as additional, substantive additional events have also unfolded. The topic is highly relevant and cohesive, and bound by it's "2016" prefix. Its been argued that the article, or others, might be merged, deletion absolutely precludes that as all the content becomes invisible. Article was in existence for some time, with growing editorial activity. Speedy deletion seems especially harsh as seemingly the main or pivotal advocate for speedy delete User:Steve_Quinn seemed to have a vague issue with a couple sentences around the US Secretary of State? Could those not be edited? Was there a desire to control the narrative as this user was page creator of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee cyber attacks and Democratic National Committee cyber attacks? Both those articles might also be merged and carry a 2016 prefix in the title as they are time/date specific. Both those articles were cross referenced from 2016 US Russian cyber conflict from the outset, and only now, weeks later there appears to be a move to delete?

Is there any extra sensitivity around The Jester news breaking, as published in CNN and the BBC then pulled, the Russian response, the obvious cover up, misinformation campaign, etc? If so by all means let me know, via email if its sensitive.

Would welcome all specific feedback what specific points expressed, or what specific sentences were offensive. This is a very important topic, WikiPedia should have excellent, unbiased, non partisan and timely coverage of it. Rick (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pile-on of comments for deletion was overwhelming so it was not possible for the closer to do otherwise. Speedy deletion is standard procedure for remnants of pages that are recently deleted through deletion discussions. I would wait for things to cool off for a few months (say, until February); if coverage of this cyber conflict persists into the new year, a revamped article with new sources is much more likely to satisfy the editing crowd in terms of "persistent coverage" (cf. WP:GNG).
It is possible to appeal an AfD by WP:DRV, but DRV of recent deletion discussions tends to only look at closure jurisprudence rather than the underlying merit of the argument, so I wouldn't advise going there. Deryck C. 15:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Was the article and talk page fully read prior to its deletion, and were the references actually skimmed and tested, at least on a spot basis? If not I very much invite that.

Here is the stated rational for delete:

  • There is strong consensus that we shouldn't keep this article, with a majority favouring deletion. - When examined over the time-frame of the article's evolution, early on there was a trickle of participants, and the "breeze" at that point, based only on "early poll numbers", that favored delete. The stub article evolved from there however, and at least one early delete voter subsequently changed their vote later on. Other, early critics did not return after substantial additional references and content was made. The vast majority of critics had no substantive editorial comment whatsoever.
  • The general consensus is that the topic of the article is ill-defined - 2016 US Russian cyber conflict is actually a topic that is very well defined, by date, and by the numerous actions and reactions taken by the US and Russia, around (and very much likely after) the 2016 US elections. Having specified both a date, and the parties involved, the topic is in fact well anchored in encyclopedic form.
  • the content of the article is primarily politician gossip rather than cyber conflict - The article, especially for a sub level one, is very well referenced. The references are to highly credible media. Direct quotes from political leaders on both sides are included. Dyn was attacked and a large portion of US Internet went out on Friday, Over the weekend a guy hacked the Russian equivalent of their Department of State. Those are cyber conflict facts. Concluding there is no "cyber conflict" here flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Actions speak louder than politicians I agree, but the actual actions here, verified by major media, are now undeniable.

The further statement The pile-on of comments for deletion was overwhelming is incorrect. A pile-on implies a increasing number of actors, who jump on a clear consensus, giving a smooth, exponential rise in unified opinion, which reaches its maximum at the end. Here, there was actually considerable pile off over time.

  • It was not possible for the closer to do otherwise - Not sure actual WP deletion procedure denies admins any discretion on deletions; they are just ordered by policy to follow the "crowd"? Neatly contained within the word jurisprudence is the word prudence which implies some discretion. Stating the closer could not do otherwise and that an appeal omits any review of the merits of the argument can't be correct?

By deleting the subject of the article are we "wishing away" something negative that actually exists. Something that might best be paid some attention to? Rick (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjlabs: Admins have some discretion, but only in marginal cases, or in case one course of action would cause overwhelming harm. Otherwise it would be Wikipedia:Supervote. Deryck C. 22:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Deryck Chan.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Deryck Chan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Name in infobox[edit]

I started an RFC at Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Name in infobox. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

About community matters in Hong Kong[edit]

Season greetings from Hong Kong. It has been a long time since we last met, hope everything is fine in the UK (though I still keep an eye for Brexit). The reason for me to left a message is not an attempt for attention to our newly proposed Wikimedia User Group Hong Kong. Just want to see if there is still a discussion place for Wikimedians in Hong Kong (there was such a thing a decade ago), such that I can spread the news out. Feel free to reply, but better if you can help. Best regards, --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@春卷柯南: I'm glad there's interest to carry on the legacy of the now-defunct Wikimedia Hong Kong as a WUG. I haven't spent much time in Hong Kong since 2015 so I have done very little in-person Wikimedia events in Hong Kong since then, and it's unlikely I'll pick it up unless I relocate to Hong Kong again in the distant future. I wish you guys all the best. Deryck C. 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at RM[edit]

Hey Deryck! I just saw your comment at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China. I'm just curious, where is the merge discussion? Or was it discussed earlier somewhere? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: My bad. I got confused. The merger discussion is for the related flag article, not the emblem article. I've changed my comment. Deryck C. 19:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another RM to the Wikiproject talk page. I am wondering if there is a better way to solve this. Sometimes for example, it is not an RM but rather a restructuring which is helpful. How do we get more interested editors (preferably from Asia) to take part and help resolve this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA traps[edit]

Do you need an answer to your question to me? Typically I take people at face value but I would think you know as well as I why this is. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I think I understanding RfA culture to a similar extent as you, but it bewilders me why you'd characterise this as a "trap" and think it's good to have a "trap". Deryck C. 15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also note GB fan has the same question. I explain this with my RfA criteria. I'm fine with evaluating editors based on their edits but self-noms are almost always a display of cluelessness and traps like these are an easy way to weed out unfit candidates. I think the vast majority of editors could probably be a NETPOSITIVE but we always have to eliminate those that would end up causing more problems than they solve. The fact that RfAs trigger a lot of oppo-research helps ensure we discover skeletons in closets before it's too late. Why invest that much effort when a simple trap, like a trick question, will serve the same purpose? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azidoazide azide deletion[edit]

Hi, I think you forgot to delete the redirect itself for the rfd that you closed. --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, thank you. Deryck C. 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti Deletion[edit]

Hey there! I marked an article that was graffiti for deletion. In your response, you mentioned it was unnecessary... Since I'm still learning things here, what would have been the correct course of action? Operator873 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9-24[edit]

You were the one that deleted the redirect after the discussion was closed, but I don't know whether that means you would know how to reopen it.

Twice yesterday I heard a public service announcement about Non-24, which sounds like 9-24 if you don't know what you're hearing. I just heard it today on a different station.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twice today now. And the man has an accent that makes it sound like he's saying nine-24.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vchimpanzee: I understand your point, though the RfD crowd seems to have come to a fairly strong consensus that we shouldn't have a redirect on this despite the weird accent in the public service announcement. I suspect if a reliable source discusses this mishearing, they might change their mind. You can start a fresh RfD if you have new evidence to present. Deryck C. 19:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invite[edit]

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg[edit]

This image is re-nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 8#File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
Editorial

This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously.

Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated.

While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.

Links
Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Wing Chun terms[edit]

Litigation? Are you making a legal threat? Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: *facepalm* Vexatious litigation refers to a matter brought before a tribunal repeatedly. To be absolutely clear, I do not intend to raise this issue anywhere outside Wikipedia. Deryck C. 15:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFD closure[edit]

Not-so-recently, you participated in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_30#Kemono. I have closed that discussion as create a set-index article. During that discussion, you said you had a draft of this article - I'd appreciate it if you would put it up. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Tazerdadog: The draft can be found below the redirect at Kemono. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, set-index article is up. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Editorial: Core models and topics[edit]

Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

Links[edit]


Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

RfA[edit]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Cullen328: You're welcome. I hope you have a good start with your shiny new buttons! Deryck C. 09:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieve deleted article[edit]

Deryck chan, Hello! You have deleted an article Chak Choti Shafi, due to lack of proven notability and reliable sources. This article was put at redirects for discussion and as result you deleted it. I have managed to find a few sources for this article, and I want to get the article again and to improve it. Please retrieve the article for improvement. Shall be very thankful, Sinner (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The user who posted the message above was indefinitely blocked after they've posted the message, so I haven't taken any action. Otherwise I would've moved the article history to the user's userspace. Any editor is welcome to make the same request and I'll happily oblige. Deryck C. 03:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The block from my account has been lifted, so please retrieve the page. Sinner (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Wikimania report[edit]

Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing.

Internet-In-A-Box

Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages.

Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example.

"Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3.

Link[edit]

  • Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation.
Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information from deleted page[edit]

Hello Deryck C. - On August 27, 2016, you deleted a page that I had created for a photo of a weeping beech tree in Newport, Rhode Island. I had been notified of the pending deletion, but didn't think to copy information from the page before it was taken down. Can you please send me the tree's measurements (Height, Circumference and Spread) from this page: File:Weeping European Beech Tree at McKillop Library, Salve Regina University, Newport, RI - August 29, 2015.jpg. Thanks in advance. Msact (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Msact: The file description said: "Photograph of a weeping European beech tree located at the McKillop Library on the campus of Salve Regina University, Newport, Rhode Island. Circumference at 2.5 feet = 17 feet 3 inches; Height = 60 feet. Photo and tree measurements taken August 29, 2015. Further info provided by email. Deryck C. 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Msact (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Dear Deryck Chan,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Cheers!

Best regards, DarkFireTaker (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkFireTaker: Okay! If you're in it, there's no way for me to deny being a dinosaur. Deryck C. 10:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deryck_Chan/Archive_19&oldid=1145689337"