This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rschen7754. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Microsoft Security Essentials". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in The WMF's Funds Dissemination Committee has published its recommendations for the inaugural round 1 of funding. Requests totalled US$10.4M, nearly all of the FDC's budget for both first and second rounds. The seven-member committee of community volunteers appointed in September advises the WMF board on the distribution of grant funds among applying Wikimedia organizations. The committee, which has a separate operating budget of $276k for salaries and expenses, considered 12 applications for funds, from 11 chapters and from the WMF itself for its non-core activities. The decision-making process included community and FDC staff input after October 1, the closing date for submissions. Taken together, the volunteers decided to endorse an average of 81% of the funding sought—a total of $8.43M, which went to 11 of the 12 applicants. This leaves $2.71M to be distributed in round 2, for which applications are due in little more than three months' time.
WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Turtles. The young project started in January 2011 and has accumulated 5 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, and 6 Featured Pictures. The project maintains a combined to-do list and hot articles meter, a popular pages ranking, and a collection of resources for turtle articles. We interviewed Faendalimas and NYMFan69-86.
Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal" WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner was forced to clarify this week that proposed structural changes to the Foundation's Engineering and Product Development Department were not a "done deal" and that it was "important that you [particularly affected staff] realise that ... your input is wanted". The reorganisation, announced on November 5 and planned for the middle of next year, will see its two components split off into their own departments.
Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect Seven featured articles, four featured lists and ten featured pictures – including the photograph that spawned the Streisand effect – were promoted this week.
Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include the question of ticker symbol placement and the notability of various types of creative performer.
You're welcome! I don't like images either, but I've picked up enough to do a review on anything that isn't fair use or something complicated. I also think that getting a FA is a good experience for a Wikipedian to have, and I'm glad to help. --Rschen775419:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
WikiProjects
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Apologies if this has been asked before, but what is the purpose of the Wikiproject question? It seems that a Wikiproject could be formed for a great many purposes - I've been part of one that created style guidelines and created one that has devolved to being a noticeboard - so isn't almost any answer going to be "correct"? (If anyone hasn't answered the question yet, I'm fine with waiting until they do, but I'm genuinely curious here...) –PhilosopherLet us reason together.18:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather post the rubric before answering this, since your question might be answered; I aim to post it today, considering the only one who hasn't answered all the questions is Elen (and her answers are moot at this point). --Rschen775418:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I realize there's several discussions going on at my "home" WikiProject today, but I will be unable to participate in them since I'm trying to keep tabs on the ArbCom situation and have a busy day IRL. I hope to comment within the next few days.
Why do I have a ton of caffeine on little sleep when I'm dehydrated and then try to function? I don't know (see similar thread in June where this happened). Responses might be further delayed unless absolutely urgent; otherwise I'll be mumbling gibberish in front of ArbCom. I seem to be mumbling right now... anyway back to homework, and I'll try and get some food or water or sleep before trying to catch up on everything. --Rschen775403:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You beat me in casting the first vote in the ArbCom elections! Drat! (Just kidding, I really don't care, but thought it was funny I missed being first by one minute). GoPhightins!00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Haha well I was following the drama about it being restarted at the last minute, and I had to fix the ACE2012 template when it borked the link to the poll, so that's probably why... --Rschen775400:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Erratic activity levels
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This just hasn't been such a good week for me, let's just say... I assume that most of my talk page stalkers know about the ArbCom mailing list leak. Unfortunately, I'm experiencing an email leak situation in my personal life, and am trying to deal with the consequences of the leak.
I'm not going to lie: there's no way in heck I'll be able to stay away, what with the ArbCom leak going on and my love of editing. But I'm definitely going to be distracted over the next few days as I try to sort out the mess. And it puts the ArbCom leak in perspective: while my opinions regarding both Elen and Jclemens are quite evident, and are not changing, at least this is only a website. --Rschen775407:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 November 2012
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain On November 24, a general assembly of Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) voted on the fate of the Wikimedia Toolserver, a central external piece of technical infrastructure supporting the editing communities with volunteer-developed scripts and webpages of various kinds that are assisting in performing mostly menial tasks.
Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons An open-access preprint presents the results from a study attempting to predict early box office revenues from Wikipedia traffic and activity data. The authors – a team of computational social scientists from Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Aalto University and the Central European University – submit that behavioral patterns on Wikipedia can be used for accurate forecasting, matching and in some cases outperforming the use of social media data for predictive modeling. The results, based on a corpus of 312 English Wikipedia articles on movies released in 2010, indicate that the joint editing activity and traffic measures on Wikipedia are strong predictors of box office revenue for highly successful movies.
Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries Wikidata, the new "Wikimedia Commons for data" and the first new Wikimedia project since 2006, reached 100,000 entries this week. The project aims to be a single, human- and machine-readable database for common data, spanning across all Wikipedia projects, which will "lead to a higher consistency and quality within Wikipedia articles, as well as increased availability of information in the smaller language editions" while lowering the burden on Wikipedia's volunteer editors—whose numbers have stalled overall, and continue to dwindle on the English Wikipedia.
WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting This week, we uncovered WikiProject Deletion Sorting, Wikipedia's most active project by number of edits to all the project's pages. This special project seeks to increase participation in Articles for Deletion nominations by categorizing the AfD discussions by various topic areas that may draw the attention of editors. The project was started in August 2005 with manual processes that are continued today by a bevy of bots, categories, and transclusions. The project took inspiration from WikiProject Stub Sorting and some historical discussions on deletion reform. As the sheer number of AfDs continues to grow, the project is seeking better tools to manage the deletion sorting process and attract editors to comment on these deletion discussions.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw you hid the content of some revisions, but one had a summary "(←Replaced content with '...')". It may be too short to hide, but it's something that I noticed. iXavier[talk|contribs]07:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, thanks for checking on me. There are a few things happening with me in real life and on the Internet, such as working on Google Map Maker and stuff. Let me know if anything needs to be done. --Geopgeop (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, USRD is still humming along. We're getting more FAs and GAs, and slowly improving article quality across the board, though it's a slow process. In California, I'm trying to get some of the San Diego articles to FA and slowly moving north. All the incompetent editors were sent away a few years ago, but I'm still trying to clean up the damage. --Rschen775420:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Okay, please quit with the wikilawyering. --Rschen7754 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Re:ACR
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'd lie low for now - the ridiculous nature of the comment has been pointed out and if he attacks you further, there will be plenty of eyes watching. He's already broken quite a few rules... --Rschen775407:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay agreed, sounds good, and I see the MFD was closed as Speedy Keep, so that's another endorsement against the recent inappropriate behavior pattern, thanks again, —Cirt (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2012
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner The global jury of Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM), the world’s largest photo contest, announced its results on 3 December.
Featured content: The play's the thing Three articles, two lists, and four images were promoted to 'featured' status this week.
Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability Deployments of MediaWiki 1.21wmf5 cause widespread problems for users across wikis when HTML and CSS updates came temporarily out of sync. On the first wikis targeted for deployment, this was caused by the different cache invalidation rates for HTML (typically one month) and CSS (typically five minutes). The retrospective on the problem highlighted the fact that that the test wiki – the WMF's answer to a production environment that individual developers can no longer practically emulate themselves – actually demonstrated the exact problem that would later manifest itself on production wikis. It went unnoticed.
WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire This week, we went searching for white roses in the lands of WikiProject Yorkshire. The project began in May 2007 as a way to improve articles about the historic English county of Yorkshire and its modern-day administrative divisions and cities. Since then, the project has accumulated 31 Featured Articles, 14 Featured Lists, 91 Good Articles, and a monstrous list of Did You Know entries. Despite all of the effort improving Yorkshire articles, the project has experienced waning participation in the last few years. The project still publishes a newsletter each month, monitors the popularity of and recent changes to its articles, maintains a portal, and collects resources for contributors to use.
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Development
Deployed new code on wikidata.org with a lot of bug fixes and a new Special:EntitiesWithoutLabel (all changes here)
http://test2.wikipedia.org now uses Wikidata (click “edit links” at the bottom of the page), and we are working to enable the synchronization of changes to test2 and display links from the repository
Added wbsetqualifier API module
Added wbremovequalifiers API module
New JavaScript wb.Api now used for labels, descriptions, aliases and sitelinks
Improved Selenium tests and PHPUnit tests
Selenium tests now independent from ULS
Selenium tests for statements UI
Existing statements can be edited now
Filtering anons and Wikidata in RecentChanges on client now works correctly
Added extra checks on client RecentChange save point to avoid duplicate entries
Started an experimental branch with API methods for claims
Link to Commons Media displayed for Snak values of related data type
Improved styling of statements in JavaScript mode
Improvements in templating engine
Started working on adding Statements to existing section of Statements
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's At the time of writing, this year's election has just closed after a two-week voting period. The eight seats were contested by 21 candidates. Of these, 15 have not been arbitrators (Beeblebrox, Count Iblis, Guerillero, Jc37, Keilana, Ks0stm, Kww, NuclearWarfare, Pgallert, RegentsPark, Richwales, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned, and YOLO Swag); four candidates are sitting arbitrators (David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, and Newyorkbrad); and two have previously served on the committee (Carcharoth and Coren). Four Wikimedia stewards from outside the English Wikipedia stepped forward as election scrutineers: Pundit, from the Polish Wikipedia; Teles, from the Portuguese Wikipedia; Quentinv57, from the French Wikipedia; and Mardetanha, from the Persian Wikipedia. The scrutineers' task is to ensure that the election is free of multiple votes from the same person, to tally the results, and to announce them. The full results are expected to be released within the next few days and will be reported in next week's edition of the Signpost.
Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell Eight articles, four images, six lists, and one topic were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.
Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual The Visual Editor project – an attempt to create the first WMF-deployable WYSIWYG editor – will go live on its first Wikipedias imminently following nearly six months of testing on MediaWiki.org. A full explanatory blog post accompanied the news, explaining the project and its setup. Once a user has opted-in, the editor can handle basic formatting, headings and lists, while safely ignoring elements it is yet to understand, including references, categories, templates, tables and images. At the last count, approximately 2% of pages would break in some way if a user tried the Visual Editor on them; it is unclear whether any specific protection will be put in place beyond relying on editors to spot problems.
WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights In celebration of Human Rights Day, we checked out WikiProject Human Rights. Started in February 2006, the project has grown to include over 3,000 articles, including 12 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, 66 Good Articles, a large collection of Did You Know entries, and a few mentions "in the news". The project monitors listings of popular pages and cleanup tags. We interviewed Khazar2, Cirt, and Boud.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hope you don't mind that I did this. Your post was just a huge blob of text, hopefully this will make it a bit easier to read. Feel free to revert it though. Legoktm (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
http://test2.wikipedia.org now uses http://wikidata.org for getting language links and wikidata.org edits affecting the existing articles on test2 show up in RecentChanges (if they are not hidden)
Statements (think of “population: 2.000.000” and similar things) are taking shape in the interface. They are still pretty buggy though at this point.
It is now possible to link to images on Wikimedia Commons in a statement (think of “image: sundown_at_the_beach.png” for example)
No longer possible to create new items and set labels when database is set to read-only
Added more tests to the GeoCoordinate parser
Make use of EditEntity in removeclaims API
Removed many singletons to reduce global state
Made SpecialSetLabel work with non-item entities
Improved settings system
Improved options of ValueFormatters
Improved options of ValueParsers
Moved label+description uniqueness check out of transaction to avoid deadlocks and changed it to only be enforced for edits changing any violating values
Fixed serialization of SiteArray
~=[,,_,,]:3
Had to fix reporting of aliases in wbsearchentities again
Implemented integration of baserevids for statements UI API calls for editconflict detection for statements/claims/snaks
Universal Language Selector fallback fix for Selenium tests
Report URL to entity in wbsearchentites API module
Moved the demo system to a larger server
Fixed several bugs in Statements user interface, most notably, adding Statements to existing sections and layout fixes
Added wikibase API module on the client to provide information about the associated repo (e.g. url, script path, article path)
A bunch of messages for autocomments were fixed (they are automatically added as an edit summary for edits on items and co in Wikidata - for example: “Changed [en] description: Finnish rock band”)
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Just curious: what was the reason for the C? Not complaining, just wondering, given everything in it and the meticulous sourcing I did, why it's not a B? Is it because it doesn't have the map image and KML? If so, I can understand (although these will be coming soon).
I'd say that the main issue is too much detail in the route description; the stuff about the medians and the guardrail is too much, for example. None of our FAs are that detailed, and that sort of detail tends to bore the reader. The cite to the Youtube video seems a bit sketchy to me as well.
Just as a heads up, I wouldn't recommend submitting to PR. A lot of articles are being archived from there after two weeks with nobody reviewing except a bot, so it might be an unnecessary delay. Once you pass GA, we have WP:HWY/ACR and articles from there have a 90% pass rate at FAC. I know there's some sort of issues that some members of the New York roads project have with the U.S. roads project (which is frustrating, because they won't tell me what these issues are to begin with), but the truth is that we still remain a functional project that fosters collaboration, and we would be happy to help you out. --Rschen775406:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't get the one about HWY PR. Is it pretty much as dead as it looks? As for regular PR, I don't mind. I got a review last time around (Independence Pass) which proved quite helpful; and I will definitely be doing one myself as a QPQ.
Since this isn't a NY road, I'm not worried about any issues (and I have heard Mitchazenia talk at length about those, believe me). Yes, it's detailed ... better from my perspective to have too much and then cut than too little and have to add (as, in fact, I recently told someone at PR). Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I suppose I didn't mention HWY PR, but it's dead and I'm considering tagging it historical. I've found our A-Class review to be the most helpful, but having it pass GA is a prerequisite for that. --Rschen775404:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to say, the C-Class assessment looks highly speculative. There is a difference between detail like this and turn-by-turn detail, which we have issues with in east-coast articles. –Fredddie™13:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have an unknown amount of edits
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I have not requested for adminship yet because I have less than 5,000 edits, but can you find out how many edits I have made?
Here is a link to my contributions to see how many edits I have made:
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
CURTAINTOAD!TALK! is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results Seven days after the close of voting, the results of the recent Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) elections have been announced by two of the four stewards overseeing the election, Mardetanha and Pundit. Of the 21 candidates, 13 managed to gain positive support-to-oppose ratios, and the top eight will be appointed to two-year terms on the committee by Jimbo Wales, exercising one of his traditional responsibilities.
WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany In the past year, we've tried to expand our horizons by looking at how WikiProjects work in other languages of Wikipedia. Following in the footsteps of our previously interviewed Czech and French projects, we visited the German Wikipedia to explore WikiProjekt Computerspiel (WikiProject Computer Games). The project dates back to November 2004 and has become the back-end of the Computer Games Portal, which covers all video games regardless of platform. Editors writing about computer games at the German Wikipedia deal with unique cultural and legal challenges, ranging from a lack of fair use precedents to the limited availability of games deemed harmful for youths to strong standards for the inclusion of material on the German Wikipedia.
Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook This week's big story on the English Wikipedia is obviously the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (which, by the time you read this, may be renamed 2012 Connecticut school shooting). Quickly created and nominated for deletion not once but twice, and both times speedily kept, the article saw the expected flurry of edits (a look at the history suggests an average of at least one a minute over the first day and a half) and more than half a million page views on the first full day.
Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass Four articles, three lists, and five images were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week, including a picture of a three-week old donkey (also known as an 'ass').
Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors MediaWiki users (including Wikimedians) can now organise themselves into groups, receiving recognition and support-in-kind from the Wikimedia Foundation. The project, backed by new Wikimedia technical contributor coordinator Quim Gil, has seen five proposals lodged in its first week of operation. The idea of MediaWiki groups mimics that of Wikimedia User Groups.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Rschen! Would you like many more userboxes on your user page? If yes, then please see this page and you will have many more userboxes on your user page! Also, you might like to create a page called "User:Rschen7754/Userboxes" and add your userboxes there! Cheers and Merry Christmas! CURTAINTOAD!TALK!02:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually used to have that page and kept about a hundred userboxes on there - but a lot of them got deleted and I finally just deleted the whole page since it was a huge mess. Now I keep them all on my userpage. Thanks though! --Rschen775404:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I considered sending personalized fancy templates but then I ran out of time and more importantly, energy. So a merry Christmas to you. To my fellow roads project editors, I'm grateful to be part of such a good team and for your friendship especially through the ups and downs in my personal life in 2012. To those outside the roads project this year that I've met through #wikipedia-en-admins and OTRS and whatever, it's been great meeting you and I look forward to getting more involved in the project in general, and I'm thankful for your advice. Hopefully 2013 will be more calm than the last few months and we can write an encyclopedia. --Rschen775407:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest As part of its new focus on core responsibilities, the Wikimedia Foundation is reforming its grant schemes so that they are more accessible to individual volunteers. The community is invited to look at proposals for a new scheme—for now called Individual engagement grants (IEGs)—which is due to kick off on January 15. On Meta, the community is once again debating the two new offline participation models—user groups (open membership groups designed to be easy to form) and thematic organizations (incorporated non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work on a specific theme within or across countries). In a consultation process on Meta that will last until January 15, the community will be discussing WMF proposals for a new guideline on conflicts of interests concerning Wikimedia resources. The draft covers COI issues for both volunteers and organizations across the movement.
WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire This week, we spent some time with WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, which focuses on the eponymous series of high fantasy literature, the television series Game of Thrones, and related works by George R. R. Martin. The project was started in July 2006 and has grown to include 11 Good Articles maintained by a small yet enthusiastic band of editors.
Featured content: Battlecruiser operational Seven articles and two lists were promoted to 'featured' status this week, including List of battlecruisers. The article covers all of the battlecruisers—which were a type of warship similar in size to a battleship but with several defining characteristics—ever planned or constructed. The last British battlecruiser built, HMS Hood, is pictured at right.
Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up Efforts were stepped up this week to sow a feeling of trust between the major parties with an interest in the future of the Toolserver. The tool- and bot-hosting server – more accurately servers – are currently operated by German chapter, Wikimedia Germany, with assistance from the Foundation and numerous volunteers, including long-time system administrator Daniel Baur (more commonly known by his pseudonym DaB). However, those parties have more recently failed to see eye-to-eye on the trajectory for the Toolserver, which is scheduled to be replaced by Wikimedia Labs in late 2013, with increasing concern about the tone of discussions.
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for tending to User:Kickcensorship so speedily last night. You might want to glance through the history of an old editor named User:Roman888, who was community banned in March 2011. I can't be sure, but my sense of this latest episode coupled with a lot of experience with the banned user makes me think this may be Roman888 back in a new form. --Drmargi (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahhhnd, he's back. See the diff on my talk page, his only edit so far. I'm not terribly worried about linking to old accounts; he'll grab enough rope hang himself in no time. --Drmargi (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the hassle; Roman has been gone so long, I'm not entirely sold on this being him, but slightly wonky English is right, the timing fits Australia if we assume the typical editor edits in their evening hours, and the censorship nonsense is fairly consistent with his line of thinking. I'm wondering if I should open a case at SPI just to document all this. He may keep at it another day or two before he finally gets bored, picks up his toys and goes elsewhere. He has a long, long history of socking, and for most if it, created accounts rather than socking via an IP.
There were actually two new accounts overnight: did you notice User:DrMaggiemee? That was the one I contacted you about, but didn't do the link correctly. I left his first post on my talk page and responded to it. After I went to bed, AussieLegend reverted his second post on my talk page, which was more aggressive than the one I left for you to see, then tagged all three accounts as possible socks of Roman888. The second one popped up after Aussie's revert, and I didn't see it until you'd already indeff'd it. --Drmargi (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll get on it today. Facepalm Honestly, when you think about the things in this world to which you can devote frustrated energy, why choose such nonsense as this? --Drmargi (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on what I've read, this is a walk in the park compared to some, thankfully. Again, I appreciate your being so on the ball with this! We SoCal (geographically, not academically; I'm a Bruin) folk need to stick together! --Drmargi (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #38
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week. It's rather short this time because pretty much everyone enjoys some well-deserved vacation.
Development
Some of us unwrapped gifts (-:
Started working on supporting different kinds of Snaks in the user interface
Fixing support for PostgreSQL in core, which was broken with introduction of the sites stuff
Code reviewing of changes in MediaWiki core
Adding watchlist filter in client for Wikidata changes
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
{{Trout}}
For blocking a newbie for doing things experienced editors do, since that must mean it's a sockpuppet and could never be a good-faith editor. Great job biting a newbie and assuming bad faith! Oh, wait, that's against the rules... RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC) NOTE: Much of that may or may not have been but definitely was sarcasm.
Going to add to this - I've been an admin for seven years now, and you really get a sense for this sort of thing after a while. Not to say that experience trumps everything, but sometimes it matters, and in this case it does. --Rschen775404:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
CURTAINTOAD!TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is ridiculous. If you really have a gripe, go to WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 23:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... what? Do you want the nominator of that GAN to wait weeks without getting the GA passed? This is wikilawyering at its finest. --Rschen775423:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't give a damn about anything apart from your admin status and your involved position and removing it - Youreallycan23:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Explanation
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Rschen, didn't mean to suggest that you knew what was going on, simply that I'd heard whispers as early as October. I meant to refactor the indents on my comments on the other page but it's much too late now. Also, thanks for notifying SilkTork - I should have done that immediately but I'm really not thinking clearly right now. Anyway, just wanted to explain. I think my comments may have come across wrong. No offense was intended. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No, not a problem. Yeah, my first FA was in early 2009 and then I largely stayed away from FAC until 2011, so I had no idea who Mattisse was, though I'd seen the name thrown about a few times. --Rschen775402:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum In the impersonal, detached Colosseum that is Wikipedia, people find it much easier to put their thumbs down. As such, many people active in the Wikimedia movement have witnessed a precipitous decline in civil discourse. This is far from a new trend, yet many people would agree that it all seemed somehow worse in 2012.
In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'? A recent, poorly researched and poorly written story in the Register highlighted the perceived "cash rich" status of the Wikimedia movement. ... The Telegraph and Daily Dot, among others, have alleged that there are multiple links between the WMF, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, and Kazakhstan's government, which is, for all intents and purposes, a one-party non-democratic state.
Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes In the first of two features, the Signpost this week looks back on 2012, a year when developers finally made inroads into three issues that had been put off for far too long (the need for editors to learn wiki-markup, the lack of a proper template language and the centralisation of data) but left all three projects far from finished.
Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee Brion Vibber has been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 11 years and was the first person officially hired to work for the Wikimedia Foundation. He was instrumental in early development of the MediaWiki software and is now the lead software architect for the foundation's mobile development team.
Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review At the beginning of the year, we began a series of interviews with editors who have worked hard to combat systemic bias through the creation of featured content; although we haven't seen six installments yet, we've also had some delightful interviews with people who write articles on some of our most core topics. Now, as we close the year, I would like to present some of my own musings on the state of featured content—especially as it pertains to systemic bias and core topics.
WikiProject report: New Year, New York This week, we're celebrating the New Year from Times Square by interviewing WikiProject New York City. Since December 2004, WikiProject NYC has had the difficult task of maintaining articles about the largest city in the United States, many of which are also among the the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. The project is home to 22 Featured Articles, 7 Featured Lists, 32 pieces of Featured Media, and a lengthy list of Did You Know? entries.
Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined Northeastern University researcher Brian Keegan analyzed the gathering of hundreds of Wikipedians to cover the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. ... A First Monday article reviews several aspects of the Wikipedia participation in the 18 January 2012, protests against SOPA and PIPA legislation in the USA. The paper focuses on the question of legitimacy, looking at how the Wikipedia community arrived at the decision to participate in those protests.
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
My talk page is not an extension of the FAC drama. --Rschen7754 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You asked a question on my talk that I regret to have to answer, as it will appear to be revisiting old issues, but nonetheless, clearing it up may help. At the time the most recent example happened, I was hosting a Christmas dinner and missed it-- didn't see it until well after it was all done, so it seemed at the time best to let it go. I only bring it up here because you asked, and because I'm tired of seeing my name thrown around with inaccurate statements.
You beat me to notifying SilkTork of a discussion on my talk, so clearly you understand when you should notify another editor.
You made an unexplained statement about me here. I'm not really interested at this juncture at knowing why you hold this view, but if you again make a similar statement, I'd appreciate a notification so I can address the incomplete and inaccurate information that is throughout that discussion on Kiefer's talk. If you are unaware of the relevant facts, in the future you might either refrain from offering an uninformed opinion, or at least notify the affected when you are maligning them. I'm unaware of what else led to Kiefer's block, and didn't have time to follow it then nor will I now, but those who claimed he was making a personal attack when he was stating a diffable fact should either familiarize themselves with the diffable history or refrain from commenting when they are uninformed.
Then you further made a statement about me at ANI, and again failed to notify me so I could address the inaccuracies. Again, at this juncture, I prefer to ignore continued provocation from all previously involved parties, and hope they will desist, so I'm not really interested in following up on why you hold this view, but should you say things about me in the future, particularly at ANI, please add a diff so that those unaware of the accurate facts can see the discussions and form accurate opinions, and please notify me.
It is bad enough that I and other editors have been the target of multiple socks, users returning under new names to revisit old grudges, and sock enablers for several years, but what I will no longer sit by for is seeing the FA process maligned and implicated because of a small handful of editors bearing grudges. Please notify me in the future if you feel you must weigh in on matters when you are unaware of the history. Thanks, I suspect you're actually one of the "good guys", and aren't even aware that you've been doing this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, you and Wehwalt have been going at it for several months now. FA RFC a year ago? The ArbCom request I filed? Motion to sanction Elen? The ArbCom elections? Nixon? Maybe there's times where you do get along, but I sure haven't seen them in the last year. (To be clear, it's both of you at fault here). For the record, I thought Keifer's block was at least reasonable - he was a bit out of control. --Rschen775420:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, you don't get it and you're not going to get it, apparently, so my simple request stands ... the next time you make (your version of disparaging and inaccurate and false and in misogynistic conversations) about me or FAC, please be sure to notice me so I can correct you when and where it occurs. Even better yet, since you have no idea what you're talking about, how about you just knock it off, ala keep your nose out of business you know nothing of, or provide a diff for those who care about accuracy which doesn't concern you? Your opinions are just that, and when not backed by diffs, they begin to amount to personal attacks, so stop it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec)
Rschen7754 is intelligent and reasonable, but he may suffer from a wish to be kind to all parties rather than be just: Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
His was the only ArbGuide to say anything about the FA debacle, before yours, and he appears to be the only person to have commented on the W's statement, which shocked me at the time (soon after I had tried to make you two chuckle with a Star Trek unfair use...). W had not defended the statement or made counter-attacks, which I think shows he understands how serious it was; I'd like to imagine that it was a first-time use of pseudophedrine or whiplash or something that should remain private that resulted in the utterance.
Thus, he is one of the best administrators around.
Regarding my block: Which block? By Giant Snowman? Or ( at least relevant to SG) by BWilkins? BWilkins has still not supplied diffs. If you support his block, perhaps you would supply the diffs? Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, hard to tell which comments are aimed at me and which at Rschen, but I don't remember anything about StarTrek, am not sure what you're referring to, and honestly I don't want to know, so don't fill me in. I want all of this to end ... that includes the continued provocation from the involved, but also the proliferation of false statements by admins surrounding the FA issues who are painfully underinformed. Just Stop, Everyone, Please. I answered Rschen's question out of courtesy, I have refrained from supplying the diffs that might demonstrate just how wrong he is and that conversation on your talk was because I am uninterested in dredging up the old history. I want it to stop ... that includes from you, Rschen. You are furthering falsehoods and disruption, so supply diffs in the future, notify me, or leave me and FAC out of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
If you're trying to get me to redact my statement, it won't work. This isn't about "like" or "dislike", it's about what is best for the project, and it's clear that you are willing to disregard the wishes of the community, by your flouting of the community sanctions. This isn't going anywhere fast, so hatting. --Rschen7754 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am undoubtedly being incredibly dense but your comment "per Coren" really explains nothing. It seems to me that even if you produced evidence that eat babies for breakfast, and plan to appeal a conviction for treason in Her Majesty's Dock Yards, this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a simple Finding of Fact. This is not about whether I am a Good Person™ or have done anything else, this is about a very narrow, but damaging, and untrue statement. You said somewhere that you have matured while you have been on Wikipedia, so I was happy to quietly accept a 2 week block on the basis that you were "uninvolved" - the mess that made it seem like a good block to you was not your fault (though even then the haste was unseemly). However since then you have defended abuse of office, and made other negative comments on my talk page. Now you attempt to sabotage a perfectly straight forward proceeding by throwing in irrelevant material in an attempt to make me me look bad. Well I now lay aside my provisional labelling of you as uninvolved. It is true that I assume good faith far more than most Wikipedians, and am constantly encouraging others to do so, but that does not mean that I turn a blind eye. RichFarmbrough, 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
It's an obvious attempt to chip away at the case piece by piece, and it's clear from the diff that I posted that an appeal of your sanctions is your big-picture goal. --Rschen775401:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
And that is a good thing, and one I have discussed openly with at least three arbitrators, and posted on the talk page of the original case 6 weeks ago. We remove all the falsehoods from the case and watch it come tumbling down. You think it is good to leave up damaging untruths about me? RichFarmbrough, 05:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
Risker says anyone asking for an amendment doesn't deserve it. It is not about "deserve" it is a about right and wrong. Just because you don't like someone, it does not make it OK to promulgate damaging falsehoods about them. I would suggest you read 1984, Animal Farm and Murder in Samarkand to understand how sustaining this sort of iniquity has dire consequences. RichFarmbrough, 21:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Happy New Year!
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
I used your FAC as the most recent example of what I view as the thoughtful environment and interplay between reviewers, delegates, and nominators that exists, even when faced with difficult interaction: see here. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata in dewp
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, You put a link on the German roads page and Daniel749 deleted your edit. I wrote something down on our Roads talk about wikidata (a little bit more than your link;) and invited the German writers to help us in the road task force. Greetings from Germany, --feuerst–talk20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'd say that patience is a good thing, though - I kept quiet about wanting to become an admin until someone offered to nominate me. --Rschen775400:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No no no you've got it all wrong. Doing it that way is a guarantee for your RFA to fail. Remember, it has to pass, right? With your reputation, you have to convince us that you would be a good admin. Saying "I want to be an admin" with 1,000 of your 6,000 edits is not the way to do it. --Rschen775415:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, you're far from the mark. I have two questions for you: 1) if one edits their userpage 6,000 times, and has no other edits, do you think that will result in a successful RFA? 2) Many RFAs of users that have over 6,000 edits fail. Why do you think that is? --Rschen775407:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
1) No.
2) Maybe it's because you need to make over 6,000 edits in 'articles'.
Curtaintoad, it's not about how many edits you have, people have passed with 3-4000, and failed with over 100k. It's about how you act and what experience you have. See my magic formula for details. WormTT(talk) 09:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Curtaintoad, I have about 8500 edits and don't think that I would come even close to passing an RfA; it would probably get snow closed. Edit count isn't everything. Look through some old successful RfAs and some old unsuccessful RfAs, and you'll get a good idea of what kinds of things you should be doing, but a hint, doing everything with a "how will this effect my RfA" is not one of the things you should do. Happy editing. GoPhightins!15:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I noticed you posted a response on the arbitration request of Fedor. Not sure if it makes the matter any different, but I edited it to reflect that this one issue effects two pages. And that IP edits are to blame for one set of the removing of sourced content. Not sure if you had seen that. Thanks PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
SPI clerk
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Unblocked - seems that I missed that in all their removing of the talk page warnings. That being said, I doubt they will be back - it seems they had one purpose to edit, and when they realized it was not possible, moved on. --Rschen775404:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not exactly nice, but yes, it is allowed. The only thing that isn't allowed to be removed are declined unblock requests. --Rschen775404:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually don't know (I've been a clerk for less than 24 hours!) I've left a note asking for another clerk to double-check though. --Rschen775423:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die Meta is the wiki that has coordinated a wide range of cross-project Wikimedia activities, such as the activities of stewards, the archiving of chapter reports, and WMF trustee elections. The project has long been an out-of-the-way corner for technocratic working groups, unaccountable mandarins, and in-house bureaucratic proceedings. Largely ignored by the editing communities of projects such as Wikipedia and organizations that serve them, Meta has evolved into a huge and relatively disorganized repository, where the few archivists running it also happen to be the main authors of some of its key documents. While Meta is well-designed for supporting the librarians and mandarins who stride along its corridors, visitors tend to find the site impenetrable—or so many people have argued over the past decade. This impenetrability runs counter to Meta's increasingly central role in the Wikimedia movement.
WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year The dawning of a new year offers both a fresh slate and an opportunity to revisit our previous adventures. 2012 marked the fifth anniversary of the WikiProject Report and was the column's most productive year with 52 articles published. In addition to sharing the experiences of Wikipedia's many active projects, we expanded our scope to highlight unique projects from other languages of Wikipedia, and tracked down all of the former editors-in-chief of the Signpost for an introspective interview ... While last year's "Summer Sports Series" may have drawn yawns from some readers, a special report on "Neglected Geography" elicited more comments than any previous issue of the Report. Following in the footsteps of our past three recaps, we'll spend this week looking back at the trials and tribulations of the WikiProjects we encountered in 2012. Where are they now?
News and notes: 2012—the big year The past 12 months have seen a multitude of issues and events in the Wikimedia foundation, the movement at large, and the English Wikipedia. The movement, now in its second decade, is growing apace in its international reach, cultural and linguistic diversity, technical development, and financial complexity; and many factors have combined to produce what has in many ways been the biggest, most dynamic year in the movement's history. Looking back at 2012, we faced a difficult task in doing justice to all of the notable events in a single article; so the Signpost has selected just a few examples from outside the anglosphere, from the English Wikipedia, and from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than attempting to cover every detail that happened.
Featured content: Featured content in review Over the past year, 963 pieces of featured content were promoted. The most active of the featured content programs was featured article candidates (FAC), which promoted an average of 31 articles a month. This was followed by featured picture candidates (FPC; 28 a month). Coming in third was featured list candidates (FLC; 20 a month). Featured topic and featured portal candidates remained sluggish, each promoting fewer than 20 items over the year.
Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013 Following on from last week's reflections on 2012, this week the Technology report looks ahead to 2013, a year that will almost certainly be dominated by the juggernauts of Wikidata, Lua and the Visual Editor.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Rschen7754. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 01:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC). 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.
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I saw your note on SR 20's talk page regarding recentism - and I am not sure how to interpret it. Would you mind clarifying, so that I can take this feedback and actually convert it into action, if possible? On a separate note, I have added a couple of references to SR 306 and SR 369, as requested. I think a C rating may be just fine, but if you'd like to reevaluate to B, be my guest. And on a really separate note, I put a suggestion into Morriswa's talk page about updating census statistics - maybe he'll bite... Thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically, you spend three entire paragraphs talking about a 2003 accident. This gives more bias and weight to recent events. See Wikipedia:Recentism. I'll take a look at the other two articles. --Rschen775418:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah - I thought that might be what you meant! That is not my work - it was there before I started the cleanup, and as a matter of fact, I put a note into the Talk page asking whether this may be considered trivial info. Please advise whether this should be removed, or whether we grandfather it into the article. Concertmusic (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically, it reads like a memorial site, which Wikipedia is not. We don't discuss accidents unless they have some overall significance that is important to the road. This one may be significant, but there's way too much detail, and a lot of it is unsourced. --Rschen775418:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It really doesn't. Before January 2012, we really functioned as one project regardless of whatever states we edited; this just made it official. By the way, we have an IRC channel too - see WP:HWY/IRC. --Rschen775422:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
List of parties
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What do any of those have to do with the topic ban? Are they also appealing a topic ban of the same subject? It was my understanding that I was the only editor involved, and the only other editor involved was the admin administrating the ban. Now if we want to discuss the topic, instead of the ban, there are others involved. But there are three issues, the topic ban, the topic, and discussion of the topic, each with a different group involved. Apteva (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My Internet just went out for 45 minutes, and it's still cutting in and out. I'm really hoping that it stays up, but I can't guarantee that, and I have no idea if it will be working tomorrow morning.
Should my Internet go out again for an extended period, I will still be able to respond to email, so if you need to get a hold of me, that is the best way to do. --Rschen775408:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Username issue
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Rschen7754,
I appreciate Your blocking of the account "German Feather Research Group" that I created, based on Wikipedia's policy that no group or organization should be represented by a user name. By adding valuable external links to Wikipedia's entries on European bird species, I am not only representing the interests of a small group of feather researchers, but the interests of bird watchers and Nature lovers in general, who represent a large community within Wikipedia. So I changed to my new, individual user name HumanArchAngel. I noticed that You tagged some of my previous external references that I added as being on the TOP of the list. Since this top position may not be acceptable to You, I will move all of these links as well as any future links to the BOTTOM of the reference list. What I am doing here is to add scientific references of Wikipedia entries on European bird species, by completing an already existing list of links to the extremely valuable Atlas to the Birds of Aragon that is offered online for free, i. e. without any commercial interests of a publisher, on the website http://www.ibercajalav.net/actividades.php?codopcion=2251&codopcion2=2502
I am simply adding the name of the co-author of this work to the list of references on Wikipedia, because so far only the name of the first author is mentioned. If You do not permit mentioning any names of authors at all in the references, then to be consequent You will have to delete the name of the main author in ALL entries of these 220 bird species on which there are links to this Atlas to the Birds of Aragon. Mentioning only the first author without mentioning the second author would not be fair, as this would be an unequal "promotion" from the side of Wikipedia for the first author. So either You allow me to add the name of the co-author, or You do the work of removing the name of the first author in all these entries. There is no reason why the second author should not be mentioned, as this is the valid system of quoting a work in the scientific literature, and doing so in a scientific way is not considered "spam" or "promotion", it is simply providing the information by which the work can be identified. Again, this is an unusual piece of work that is made available for free in PDF form and allows the sexing and ageing of birds on high-quality photographs that were produced over the course of many years without any commercial interest. it is all volunteer work, and this information is of high value to bird watchers and Nature lovers who visit these entries on birds on the websites of Wikipiedia.
I have myself no commercial or other interest in promoting the work of this Atlas of the Birds of Aragon as I am not involved in it. I simply find that this is valuable information made available for free on the internet, so it should be linked to Wikipedia to be widely known. I am planning to include links to this Atlas of the Birds of Aragon also in the German and Spanish Wikipedia entries for these bird species as German and Spanish users will be grateful for links to this valuable Atlas, too, which permits to identify the age and sex of birds in great detail.
Thank You for Your understanding and I hope that birds will bring You joy, too
