![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
oversight
will be renamed suppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for
technical reasons. You can comment
in Phabricator if you have objections.
Hello @
Modussiccandi:,
Thanks for reviewing my first draft. It is not clear to me yet how to reference an article on Wikipedia therefore I would like to ask if you would be so kind to explain further what you mean by improperly sourced by adding a short comment. Meanwhile I have added few more secondary sources to improve my submission. Could you please take a look if it is better now so that I can eventually resubmit it? Many thanks --
Submarine00 (
talk)
23:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Submarine00 ( talk) 23:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Modussiccandi, I have read your review about my draft, thanks for that, I think first of all, you have not got the deep meaning of my text which is about experimental electronics and sound poetry. They are not so widespread as disciplines, nevertheless practised and followed by institutions and museum. Now, coming to the point you are complaining about (lack of links to be verified) it seems you have not got through the text as I have put many external link and all the official references in order to be checked. It seems to me there is a sort of prejudice towards these kinds of researches, treated as a secondary line. I would like to receive more detailed items about your critic on my draft. Thanks for answering, with my best Polip Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polip team ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
An article I submitted was rejected on the grounds that the provided references weren't sufficient - "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."
I would like help on sourcing the appropriate references, because I had thought the ones I used WERE notable - long-running outlets that are highly respected in their communities of Buddhism and art/Poetry or in newsprint.
Enigmatic Naboo ( talk) 07:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Modussiccandi, Thank you very much for reviewing our first draft
/info/en/?search=Draft:Michael_Schemann
We have added some more evidence and it would be great to hear, if this is sufficient to publish the contribution about Prof. Michael Schemann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bienchen-2002 ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
This is to show our appreciation for contributing to LGBTQ community articles. Many thanks, Electronicality ( talk) 08:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
Hello Modussiccandi. Request your help in improving /info/en/?search=Draft:Qentelli. MaruthiSharma1234 ( talk) 17:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the help Modussiccandi MaruthiSharma1234 ( talk) 02:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
![]()
|
Hi, you recently closed the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) with a decision to redirect the article. I supported redirection in the discussion, but I am concerned about your statement of, and implementation of, the decision. I am not mad, I want to be friendly, but I think there may be a little bit which can be learned here, and I hope you are willing to discuss this.
Specifically I disagree with your decision to redirect 172 High Street, Elstow to the article Listed buildings in Elstow, rather than to redirect it to a more specific target that I suggested in the discussion. Also I disagree with your decision not to add the category Category:Thatched buildings in England to the redirect, which I also suggested in the discussion.
I wonder, did you disagree with these specific suggestions, or think they were not adequately supported in the discussion? I did suggest them relatively late in the discussion, on 21 February while the AFD opened on 11 February. But I think they were reasonable suggestions/requests and no one disagreed with them, nor should anyone disagree with them, IMHO. Or did you simply not see them? In which case I would be concerned and I would tend to think you should not be closing AFDs. Or did you not understand them? Not everyone knows that you can target a redirect specifically to a certain table row in a table within an article. Also not everyone understands the usefulness of attaching categories to redirects. But if you did not understand these ideas, I think you should have inquired about them or left the AFD alone without closing it yourself.
A couple days have gone by now, but I hope you can remember your reasoning from the time and comment about it now. And if you do simply agree the suggestions should have been implemented, could you please implement them now.
sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 02:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Modussiccandi, just wanted to let you know that the Las Cruces Academy page is still under construction... it is not meant to be a promotional page but an informational one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorPublicGood999 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello again Modussiccandi, wanted to let you know the page has been restored without the phrase "top-notch". And this time that page is here to stay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorPublicGood999 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
I took this pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with this song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations to new FA Eduard Fraenkel! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Modussiccandi! I've
nominated you to receive a gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi Modussiccandi, I'm having a dispute with Serial Number 54129 that I am asking you to mediate, if you agree. I'm reaching out to you because I you're an admin whose judgment I trust and because you seem to be on friendly terms with Serial as well. The dispute relates to this exchange [1], now removed [2] (see also [3]). The gist of it is that I was under the impression that Serial had made a mistake here [4], when he characterized the opinion of Ritchie333 (courtesy ping) as requiring GAs for adminship. However, Serial seems to have misunderstood the meaning or intention behind this note, and our exchange has just ended with them banning me from their talk page and suggesting that I go to WP:ANI.
I wrote my first message on Serial's talk page in a hurry so it may not have been as clear and as courteous as I would've liked in retrospect. My sass here [5] was also unneeded. However, I truly did not mean anything by my comments other that was I set forth above, i.e. letting them know that Ritchie333's criteria did not require GAs to be considered for adminship.
I do not wish to be in dispute with a long term, regularly barnstared editor based on what I think is a simple misunderstanding. Of course, I'm open to the idea I'm wrong, and that maybe there's something about my messages that rightfully angered Serial, and I would be grateful to know if this is the case.
Thank you very much for your time, and please feel free to let me know if you would prefer that I reach out to another admin. JBchrch talk 02:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
On 14 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonas Grethlein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jonas Grethlein turned down chaired professorships at the universities of St Andrews and Cambridge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Grethlein. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Jonas Grethlein), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Kusma ( talk) 12:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of the Jeannie Bradbury entry. Much appreciated. Would you take a look at the entry for an act her father was a part of? draft:sanford and lyons Previous submission seems to have been declined, but I have added primary sources, further career information, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana2022 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey Modussiccandi,
You have been
successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our
Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!
On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,
-- janbery ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
You wrote, " I consider this one borderline. We want to see detailed biographical coverage. Of the many sources used in this submission, not one struck me as fulfilling this standard. Reference number 6 comes closest, I think."
I'm at a loss to know what you are asking me to do. I've done some additional editing and added more sources, but I frankly don't understand what you are asking for. I'd appreciate your clarification. ISTM you're asking for a biography, but I haven't found an actual biography of him. The sources that I link to document the statements in the article, and AFAIK they are all reliable, primary sources. What must I do to improve the article so that it will be accepted? Txantimedia ( talk) 22:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just FYI -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
Thanks for your review of the captioned draft. Was super helpful. I think I have made all edits suggested by you. Please do have a look! Thanks
/info/en/?search=Draft:Sameer_Kulavoor
Editing53 Editing53 ( talk) 17:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Please look at my draft. Basically, the sources about this person are in Russian, but to make it easier to understand, I found a source in Forbes in English, where this person is described very extensively, including sanctions against him. 31.40.143.16 ( talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
deletelogentry
and deletedhistory
rights. This means that those in the
Researcher user group and
Checkusers who are not administrators can now access
Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (
T301928)This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 19, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
On 16 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ciceruacchio, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ciceruacchio, a cart driver, was described as "Rome's first citizen"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ciceruacchio. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Ciceruacchio), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for contesting the speedy deletion attempt at Nathalie Tocci. I've found, after writing a lot of BLPs, that people have some amazing ideas about what's promotional ... Looking over it now I literally cannot find a single positive adjective on that page! Sometimes I think there are CSD taggers who believe that neutrally worded, cited, and clearly verifiable statements of someone doing something impressive are automatically promotional, because they document something that a reader might be impressed by. Anyhow, thanks for upholding CSD rules. - Astrophobe ( talk) 20:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I will continue working on my Wikipedia page and make corrections as best I can. Your comments will help me improve the information about this artist. Best wishes, Artexposure Artexposure ( talk) 21:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dream Games. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle ( talk) 17:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe consider reverting this edit? The user hasn't edited since I posted my warning less than an hour before you, and it's very unlikely they saw it. agtx 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Modussiccandi! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! interstatefive ( talk) - just another roadgeek 00:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
![]() |
Hey, Modussiccandi. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ( talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ( talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
oversight
will be renamed suppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for
technical reasons. You can comment
in Phabricator if you have objections.
Hello @
Modussiccandi:,
Thanks for reviewing my first draft. It is not clear to me yet how to reference an article on Wikipedia therefore I would like to ask if you would be so kind to explain further what you mean by improperly sourced by adding a short comment. Meanwhile I have added few more secondary sources to improve my submission. Could you please take a look if it is better now so that I can eventually resubmit it? Many thanks --
Submarine00 (
talk)
23:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Submarine00 ( talk) 23:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Modussiccandi, I have read your review about my draft, thanks for that, I think first of all, you have not got the deep meaning of my text which is about experimental electronics and sound poetry. They are not so widespread as disciplines, nevertheless practised and followed by institutions and museum. Now, coming to the point you are complaining about (lack of links to be verified) it seems you have not got through the text as I have put many external link and all the official references in order to be checked. It seems to me there is a sort of prejudice towards these kinds of researches, treated as a secondary line. I would like to receive more detailed items about your critic on my draft. Thanks for answering, with my best Polip Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polip team ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
An article I submitted was rejected on the grounds that the provided references weren't sufficient - "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."
I would like help on sourcing the appropriate references, because I had thought the ones I used WERE notable - long-running outlets that are highly respected in their communities of Buddhism and art/Poetry or in newsprint.
Enigmatic Naboo ( talk) 07:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Modussiccandi, Thank you very much for reviewing our first draft
/info/en/?search=Draft:Michael_Schemann
We have added some more evidence and it would be great to hear, if this is sufficient to publish the contribution about Prof. Michael Schemann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bienchen-2002 ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
This is to show our appreciation for contributing to LGBTQ community articles. Many thanks, Electronicality ( talk) 08:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
Hello Modussiccandi. Request your help in improving /info/en/?search=Draft:Qentelli. MaruthiSharma1234 ( talk) 17:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the help Modussiccandi MaruthiSharma1234 ( talk) 02:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
![]()
|
Hi, you recently closed the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) with a decision to redirect the article. I supported redirection in the discussion, but I am concerned about your statement of, and implementation of, the decision. I am not mad, I want to be friendly, but I think there may be a little bit which can be learned here, and I hope you are willing to discuss this.
Specifically I disagree with your decision to redirect 172 High Street, Elstow to the article Listed buildings in Elstow, rather than to redirect it to a more specific target that I suggested in the discussion. Also I disagree with your decision not to add the category Category:Thatched buildings in England to the redirect, which I also suggested in the discussion.
I wonder, did you disagree with these specific suggestions, or think they were not adequately supported in the discussion? I did suggest them relatively late in the discussion, on 21 February while the AFD opened on 11 February. But I think they were reasonable suggestions/requests and no one disagreed with them, nor should anyone disagree with them, IMHO. Or did you simply not see them? In which case I would be concerned and I would tend to think you should not be closing AFDs. Or did you not understand them? Not everyone knows that you can target a redirect specifically to a certain table row in a table within an article. Also not everyone understands the usefulness of attaching categories to redirects. But if you did not understand these ideas, I think you should have inquired about them or left the AFD alone without closing it yourself.
A couple days have gone by now, but I hope you can remember your reasoning from the time and comment about it now. And if you do simply agree the suggestions should have been implemented, could you please implement them now.
sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 02:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Modussiccandi, just wanted to let you know that the Las Cruces Academy page is still under construction... it is not meant to be a promotional page but an informational one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorPublicGood999 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello again Modussiccandi, wanted to let you know the page has been restored without the phrase "top-notch". And this time that page is here to stay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorPublicGood999 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
I took this pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with this song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations to new FA Eduard Fraenkel! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Modussiccandi! I've
nominated you to receive a gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi Modussiccandi, I'm having a dispute with Serial Number 54129 that I am asking you to mediate, if you agree. I'm reaching out to you because I you're an admin whose judgment I trust and because you seem to be on friendly terms with Serial as well. The dispute relates to this exchange [1], now removed [2] (see also [3]). The gist of it is that I was under the impression that Serial had made a mistake here [4], when he characterized the opinion of Ritchie333 (courtesy ping) as requiring GAs for adminship. However, Serial seems to have misunderstood the meaning or intention behind this note, and our exchange has just ended with them banning me from their talk page and suggesting that I go to WP:ANI.
I wrote my first message on Serial's talk page in a hurry so it may not have been as clear and as courteous as I would've liked in retrospect. My sass here [5] was also unneeded. However, I truly did not mean anything by my comments other that was I set forth above, i.e. letting them know that Ritchie333's criteria did not require GAs to be considered for adminship.
I do not wish to be in dispute with a long term, regularly barnstared editor based on what I think is a simple misunderstanding. Of course, I'm open to the idea I'm wrong, and that maybe there's something about my messages that rightfully angered Serial, and I would be grateful to know if this is the case.
Thank you very much for your time, and please feel free to let me know if you would prefer that I reach out to another admin. JBchrch talk 02:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
On 14 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonas Grethlein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jonas Grethlein turned down chaired professorships at the universities of St Andrews and Cambridge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Grethlein. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Jonas Grethlein), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Kusma ( talk) 12:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of the Jeannie Bradbury entry. Much appreciated. Would you take a look at the entry for an act her father was a part of? draft:sanford and lyons Previous submission seems to have been declined, but I have added primary sources, further career information, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana2022 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey Modussiccandi,
You have been
successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our
Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!
On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,
-- janbery ( talk) 16:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
You wrote, " I consider this one borderline. We want to see detailed biographical coverage. Of the many sources used in this submission, not one struck me as fulfilling this standard. Reference number 6 comes closest, I think."
I'm at a loss to know what you are asking me to do. I've done some additional editing and added more sources, but I frankly don't understand what you are asking for. I'd appreciate your clarification. ISTM you're asking for a biography, but I haven't found an actual biography of him. The sources that I link to document the statements in the article, and AFAIK they are all reliable, primary sources. What must I do to improve the article so that it will be accepted? Txantimedia ( talk) 22:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just FYI -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
Thanks for your review of the captioned draft. Was super helpful. I think I have made all edits suggested by you. Please do have a look! Thanks
/info/en/?search=Draft:Sameer_Kulavoor
Editing53 Editing53 ( talk) 17:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Please look at my draft. Basically, the sources about this person are in Russian, but to make it easier to understand, I found a source in Forbes in English, where this person is described very extensively, including sanctions against him. 31.40.143.16 ( talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
deletelogentry
and deletedhistory
rights. This means that those in the
Researcher user group and
Checkusers who are not administrators can now access
Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (
T301928)This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 19, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
On 16 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ciceruacchio, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ciceruacchio, a cart driver, was described as "Rome's first citizen"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ciceruacchio. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Ciceruacchio), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for contesting the speedy deletion attempt at Nathalie Tocci. I've found, after writing a lot of BLPs, that people have some amazing ideas about what's promotional ... Looking over it now I literally cannot find a single positive adjective on that page! Sometimes I think there are CSD taggers who believe that neutrally worded, cited, and clearly verifiable statements of someone doing something impressive are automatically promotional, because they document something that a reader might be impressed by. Anyhow, thanks for upholding CSD rules. - Astrophobe ( talk) 20:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I will continue working on my Wikipedia page and make corrections as best I can. Your comments will help me improve the information about this artist. Best wishes, Artexposure Artexposure ( talk) 21:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dream Games. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle ( talk) 17:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe consider reverting this edit? The user hasn't edited since I posted my warning less than an hour before you, and it's very unlikely they saw it. agtx 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Modussiccandi! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! interstatefive ( talk) - just another roadgeek 00:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
![]() |
Hey, Modussiccandi. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ( talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ( talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |