The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Thanks for uploading File:Women's Sunday, Hyde Park, 21 June 1908.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I am being ATTACKED - WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT by this person - User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for many months, he apparrently hates me and the visual arts. Please get this guy off my back. Thank you... Modernist ( talk) 15:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot ( talk) 04:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Hungarian Revolution of 1956 FAR/C I'm thinking of Bill Lomax. Both as an author, and an editor of a major scholarly collection (in a box, can't find on world cat) and annotated primary source collection (1990, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956). The weight issue is the centrality of the Hungarian working class and their councils as one of the major historiographical narratives. It is apparent in structure and weight: the article has the revolution ending with the Soviet Intervention. Last time I checked the Greater Budapest Central Workers Council called off the strikes some time in December after the third wave of arrests of their leadership. Sporadic, as far as I can tell non-councilist, rural guerrilla groups operated into 1958. Fifelfoo ( talk) 17:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The essay, with your polishings, looks well. Is it possible, though, that more than just my name could be included in the Help section? Ealdgyth, for one, has much authority and respect in this area and might be willing to be mentioned. Brianboulton ( talk) 09:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on A Room of One's Own. Speaking as someone who has tried to find coverage of Judith (and Mary, Anne, Susanna, and Elisabeth) that is independant of her husband, that aspect of Woolf's work resonates strongly, and I'm glad to see the article receive a bit of care and attention. Incidentally, and as a complete digression, you may find this article interesting:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)It's not, I don't think, in your particular area of interest, but it's somewhat illustrative of Woolf's Judith.
In any case… Among your edits was a link to a copy of the book on the Internet Archive. That edition was published in the UK in 1935, which means its copyright term in its country of origin is pma. 70 (death of author + 70 years). Since Woolf died in 1941 it would have been in copyright in the UK until 2012. And, crucially in this case, per the URAA its US copyright was restored (to the new US copyright terms) on the URAA date in 1996. Since the US copyright was renewed in 1957 (by Leonard Woolf), the US term of copyright that applies is 95 years after first publication. Thus the work as such will be in copyright in the US through the end of 2024 (1929+95), and that particular edition of it until 2030 (1935+95). The copy on IA thus violates Woolf's copyright, and our link to it falls under WP:COPYVIOEL.
Now, I'm of the general opinion that we're too paranoid about copyright (NFCC in particular makes me tear my hair out: more Catholic than the Pope springs to mind), but as best I can tell, this particular instance does fall afoul of our copyright policy and needs to be removed. WP:IANAL applies, of course, and your assessment may differ; but I figured I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. -- Xover ( talk) 08:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, thanks for your work on this Talk:Football Lads Alliance#RfC about restoring content has now been closed as restore which I have done in this diff. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 12:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kim Stallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Stallwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask ( talk) 15:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've been working on Jill Valentine for the past couple of months, and have been advised to contact previous editors before nominating the article at FAC again. I've worked with Czar [a bit] and Niwi3 [a lot], and I believe I've dealt with all of their concerns from 'Concept and design' and 'Appearances'. Now all that's left is 'Reception and legacy'—specifically the two paragraphs regarding her sexual objectification. I think I've made some progress there, but I'd appreciate your feedback on that section, if you have the time. I understand if you don't, though... you seem to be pretty busy with all of the above. Regards. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi SarahSV,
I have been participating in the July Wikiproject Women in Red editathon, working on new biographies of African women. In my research, I am finding women who are advocates to stop (FGM). Older activists like Edna Adan Ismail, have Wiki biographies, but there are younger notable activists like Halima Ali Adan and Nice Leng’ete who have new or not yet written profiles.
I have linked questions that I would like to get your thoughts on:
My goal is to provide information in one or few places on Wikipedia for people researching information on current FGM activists and activism. thx MauraWen ( talk) 13:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I recently noticed there was no page for Draft:To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science and was surprised. I'm sure you've heard about this new research company and it was a fairly significant news item (I referenced several signifant news sources). The company was founded by Tom DeLonge and has as advisers numerous very high ranking ex-U.S. defense and intelligence officials.
Would you mind having a look at the draft article and perhaps provide feedback or edit, or help expedite the AfC procedure (this is my first creation and it says it could take 6 weeks?!) Thanks very much! (also - just a note of thanks on your amazing wikipedianship!) Cheesy poof ( talk) 14:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil was notified of infobox discretionary sanctions on April 1, which I included in the AE report. Perhaps you will consider changing your statement. – dlthewave ☎ 20:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
...that someone with as much experience of Wikipedia as you would think twice before changing long-standing WP:BLP policy on the basis of a single post from a contributor who clearly (as a moments glance at their edit history would have shown) was looking to find a way to add contentious material to a biography, in the face of multiple policy-based objections. Established contributors are strongly advised against altering policy in order to win disputes, and I don't think that a 'get an admin to do it for you' exception to this would be seen as generally helpful. It certainly wasn't in this case, since it has given the IP the misleading impression that WP:BLP is regularly rewritten on a whim. 86.147.197.31 ( talk) 01:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Catrìona ( talk) 00:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)