![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Hello Paine Ellsworth ( talk), I was wondering if you would please change the HTML text color codes for the Miami Dolphins & Los Angeles Chargers over at Module:Gridiron color/data? Specifically, I'm requesting that the HTML text color codes for both teams be changed from black to white . Please make these changes for me? Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
![]()
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Could you take a look at this edit request? Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please take a look at this discussion whenever you can? (motivated by a series of edits and reverts) It seems a user is not conducting himself in good faith. Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 20:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
Research notes:
The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself. [4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Is the use of the superscript on your user page intentional? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I've seen you closed this requested move "per consensus seen below". Could you clarify per which consensus? Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote".
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
Hi, you don't need to do this, it's the default. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Paine, I was wondering if you would please look at my Template-protected edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron color? It's the template-protected edit request regarding the Jacksonville Jaguars' color code formatting. my request is dated 15 February 2021. Please implement my requested changes for me? Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: Fixed, figured it out a minute later Hi Paine, and I hope all is well for you and yours. Turns out, unsurprisingly, that I have no idea of how to pop in "Category:Architect navigational boxes" on the bottom of the {{ Thomas Jefferson}} template and, seeing that you had put the doc page up on the template, thought that you may know how. If so, can you please add it? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the requests for removal, my reasoning was that none of them were actually on the template. 2601:241:300:B610:6DF3:59C0:DCD6:8622 ( talk) 05:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Hey... just wanted to let you know that this edit to Template:Infobox Software broke screenshot sizes. Can't edit this important template, please revert. ⸺ RandomStaplers 02:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
|screenshot_size=
. Without that underscore, the size parameter was ignored and the default size of 300px was used. I fixed that ibox and the testcases table on the
testcases page as well.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:R to person. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Template:R to person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The article John Fetterman (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Pointless disambiguation page.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs)
06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
In acknowledgement of your revert, thank you—I wasn't sure if I could expand the existing RM to include a secondary option (and if so, how it is done), or if it absolutely requires a new RM to be generated for the secondary option. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for moving my close request! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, re
this ediy - since when has <u>...</u>
been deprecated? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
14:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
[https://www.tutorialspoint.com/html5/html5_deprecated_tags.htm here]
It seems that any attempt to leave this page as an article, rather than a redirect, is being reverted. This goes against the consensus you found in the RM. Can you maybe recommend the course of action, not familiar with this type of situation. Thanks! 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.@
Paine Ellsworth: Hi, just curious if I could request to add module4
to the source code? Since my previous edit request has been reverted and I don't wish to argue or debate further with those 2 editor since they are not understanding enough and sorry to say this, quite stubborn as well. I believe adding module4
to directly below module3
is considered non-controversial changes hence I would like your view on it before I submit an request. —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝)
01:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Please revert your move back again. The consensus is outdated and was based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. The company is no longer Entercom. As it stands the article is at a plainly factually incorrect title. WP:NOTBURO and all that. oknazevad ( talk) 01:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Redirects from molecular formulas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paine, could you look at Talk:Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority#Requested move 21 March 2021, and see if you concur with the close? I don't, but am not ready to talk to the closer yet. (You can choose not to get involved, or to respond privately. if you'd rather.) Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 02:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in how you arrived at your decision regarding consensus on the above move. From what I can see, the raw vote count is 5 support v 2 oppose, with a comment (mine) which clearly leans oppose. However, on closer inspection, two of the support votes are from the same user (neither give any information to back up the support) and a third support vote also doesn't give any information to back it up. I would say this looks more like a no consensus close to me. Regards, Gricehead ( talk) 06:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
two of the support votes [of the five] are from the same user
At Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia/ Racism in Ethiopia? The RM was closed as move, relisted following vocal objections by a single editor who logged in his object, then nobody else participated in the move. It's still is pretty clear as a consensus for move with a single objection. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:R to historic name has been
nominated for merging with
Template:R to former name. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Tamwin (
talk)
00:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.I tried to tag you in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir but failed due to bad spelling. This message is to reduce clutter on that page with a corrected ping. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:R case. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Template:R case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
192.76.8.91 (
talk)
21:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you mind giving your thoughts on User:Elli/rcat standardization sometime soon? I'd like to get consensus to get this implemented in {{ rcat shell}} automatically, followed by a bot to remove all the duplicated templates - but since we've had conflicts here before, I'd like to get us to have consensus before I take any action otherwise. Elli ( talk | contribs) 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
|bot-added=
, that the bot would use, that would add it to a different category instead (only done if the redirect is not in any rcats that aren't sensed automatically, ofc, because if it is then it wouldn't sort to Miscellaneous redirects).
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
01:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I wanted to ask you about your relist note. It seems proper procedure wasn't followed when this was first overturned/relisted, when it should have been immediately moved back at the beginning of the relist period (See WP:MRV #6). Your actions yesterday moving it back, while appreciated, appears to have now added an additional 7 days to the listing period, which you note. But is it appropriate for you to reference your own actions with passivity and without acknowledging your part? All this has done is delay getting a decision on a topic that has 12 participants, eight of whom oppose the move? I know these aren't headcounts, but it seems more than enough participation for someone to make a determination at this point. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 14:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paine, do you know how to fix botched move proposals? See Talk:Lunar Gateway#Requested move 1 June 2021. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 04:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.
You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk)
00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I will probably have to have someone go through with a bot and change the erroneous parameter on the small number of articles. It also appears quite a few articles aren't categorized into those task forces either (they are relatively new compared to the others) as I saw when I went to edit a talk page... UGH... Noah Talk 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
![]()
|
Perhaps you should consider putting yourself forward for further tools. So many of my supporters are better contributors than I. My success so far, such as it is, has been to stay largely out of the spotlight and just soldier. Please contact me if I'm out of line or need additional eyes. BusterD ( talk) 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paine, hope that you're. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a member of WikiProject Redirect? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here ( User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject redirects interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
To editor Tom (LT): Please see User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox. Wasn't sure how you wanted to format it in your sandbox, so there you will find my responses. Thank you so much for this chance to bring more light to our projects! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 00:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Template:Karnataka Legislative Assembly election, 2013 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
15:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Template:Karnataka state assembly elections, 2004 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
![]()
|
Hi, I mentioned you at ANI in the last hour. Should have done it as a ping, sorry. - Sitush ( talk) 13:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI, I moved the discussion you started about malformed requested moves to my bot's talk. Part of my ~bimonthly archiving to get my talk page back down to a reasonable size.
I don't follow why Government of New Zealand is an "incorrect name". There was once a consensus to move to that name. Ngrams indicates that many sources use that name. Government of the United States is a valid redirect, as is United States Government. These are all just {{ R from alternative name}} titles.
{{ R from incorrect name}} – an erroneous name – implies, with some sense of urgency, that something needs to be fixed. "Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target without the use of a piped link that hides the correct details." That's not what this is. At the moment, the "incorrect name" template is basically ignored. Nobody that I'm aware of is taking any action based on it.
Finally, I've cleared Category:Pages with templates requiring substitution down to just 30 items (up until yesterday there were hundreds of pages in that category). Most of what's left seems to be caused by {{ Thank You IP}}, which requires substution because it auto-signs when substituted. This is counter to the behavior of other similar templates such as {{ Thank you}}, {{ Thank you very much}}, {{ Thank}}, and {{ WikiThanks}}, none of which auto-sign or require substitution. I'd like to solve this issue by removing the auto-sign feature and substitution requirement from {{ Thank You IP}}. The signature is located in an unconventional place, before the Please consider creating an account for yourself! line rather than at the end of that line, which would be the usual place to expect a signature. I fixed one of these, but it's a tedious job to "substitute" after the fact, keeping the original signature that the editor put in the usual place.
Sorry this is a malformed message because it covers three different topics. Thanks
wbm1058 (
talk)
23:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kadabra (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadabra. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:R from initials. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Template:R from initials until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tevildo (
talk)
18:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there I saw your comments on the RFC here I don't understand what does "No consequences" outcome meant here and now which RFC should be followed the one in 2018? or the one in 2015? LiamKhan469 ( talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 7#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
dud
hhr
Contribs
19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't intend the comment here as a personal attack, but since you've understood it that way, I'm happy to withdraw it. I think it would make most sense to delete the first sentence, rather than striking it, and in that case it would make sense to delete your comment also. Would you be happy with this? Havelock Jones ( talk) 11:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
![]()
|
Hello Paine, I noticed the second sentence under the heading "Purpose" in Template:Infobox Australian place reads: "... may be substed." Maybe you'd like to fix it. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 07:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, please can you either properly close the DRASTIC description, taking into account all the comments solicited, or undo your close so that I can may reopen it as per WP:RFC policy? The RfC was opened to build consensus on a neutral description of the group, and was withdrawn under unusual circumstances, leaving us with the problem unresolved. The current "internet activists" description is not neutral, and more consistent with the WP:GLOBALTIMES description than other WP:RS descriptions. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 19:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I recently requested an image edit to Portal:Afghanistan. And while the consensus you asked is kind of challenging to give, I will try my best to summarize it:
I'll admit this being a poor research, might be able to prove the required consensus. What do you think? Interesting Geek ( talk) 19:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Portal|Afghanistan}}
, and thus far I have not seen a consensus of editors to change the flag in that template. Can you link to a discussion that is specifically about changing the flag in this template?
P.I. Ellsworth -
ed.
put'r there
01:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Broad consensus in favour of updating the article to reflect current regime.It is still hard to prove which flag to be used, but to eliminate potential NPOV or such, both or no flags should be shown. I would just wait it out to see any major developments. Interesting Geek ( talk) 03:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi P.I. Ellsworth,
I hope you don't mind me contacting you, but I've noticed that you seem knowledgeable about how RfC's work and I was hoping you could point me in the right direction here. There is an RFC that has been going on for almost three weeks, and had no replies until today for almost two weeks. Today, an involved editor pinged six users asking for their contribution, and there are concerns about canvasing, specifically about whether they pinged a partisan crowd.
I haven't been involved in RfC's involving a possible canvassing issue, so I am not quite sure how to proceed.
Thank you for any guidance you can provide, BilledMammal ( talk) 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Your recent change to Module:Infobox gene has created a lot of "expressed in" links to disambiguation pages Colon, Appendix, Fundus, and perhaps others I haven't noted yet. I'm not sufficiently adept in Lua to figure out where this is coming from, but it doesn't seem to be from Wikidata, since the Wikidata item for Colon, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5982337, correctly links to the Wikipedia article Colon (anatomy), not to the disambiguation page. Hope you can figure out the cause and the fix! -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
Thank you for your kind words. ❤ I appreciate it very much. And you have my apologies in advance in case the tone in my messages may sound a bit too harsh. However my presence in the discussion isn't helpful, it will be better for you there without me. Take care and have a beautiful day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I have replied to your apology on FOARP's talk page but I felt I wanted to leave you a more personal message here on your talk page if you dont mind? Listen, there is no need to be hard on yourself. You did nothing wrong. You believed what was right and you pursued it. That's all. The fact that you felt there was something that in your view iy seemed off and you attempted to correct it, doesn't necessarily mean it was a waste of time for the others. You did what you had to do. That's all. you did the best in your capacity so that it gets corrected and balanced in the way you believe it is better, and that alone is worth a praise and recognition, not apology! Apologizing for doing the right thing isn't going to help Wikipedia. If you want to help, that is to continue the scrutiny that has characterized your efforts (like how we saw at Imia at least). This is how everybody should be doing, IMO if we want to keep POV warriors at check. Wishing you a good day and if there is anything I can do for you, please don't hesitate to come to my talk page! Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
Even in the most heated of debates, I admire how you remained kind and calm and I think we all can learn from that. And thank you for your kind words the other day! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
RE Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Imia/Kardak (closed). I only posted a few words there, but it was very complicated case, I could see very well where you were coming from, and there were times when I was contemplating strong support of your nomination. In the end, I fell as I !voted, but it was not obvious. It was a fair nomination, not a waste of time. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Hello Paine Ellsworth ( talk), I was wondering if you would please change the HTML text color codes for the Miami Dolphins & Los Angeles Chargers over at Module:Gridiron color/data? Specifically, I'm requesting that the HTML text color codes for both teams be changed from black to white . Please make these changes for me? Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
![]()
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Could you take a look at this edit request? Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please take a look at this discussion whenever you can? (motivated by a series of edits and reverts) It seems a user is not conducting himself in good faith. Thanks-- Watchlonly ( talk) 20:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
Research notes:
The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself. [4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Is the use of the superscript on your user page intentional? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I've seen you closed this requested move "per consensus seen below". Could you clarify per which consensus? Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote".
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
Hi, you don't need to do this, it's the default. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Paine, I was wondering if you would please look at my Template-protected edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron color? It's the template-protected edit request regarding the Jacksonville Jaguars' color code formatting. my request is dated 15 February 2021. Please implement my requested changes for me? Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: Fixed, figured it out a minute later Hi Paine, and I hope all is well for you and yours. Turns out, unsurprisingly, that I have no idea of how to pop in "Category:Architect navigational boxes" on the bottom of the {{ Thomas Jefferson}} template and, seeing that you had put the doc page up on the template, thought that you may know how. If so, can you please add it? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the requests for removal, my reasoning was that none of them were actually on the template. 2601:241:300:B610:6DF3:59C0:DCD6:8622 ( talk) 05:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Hey... just wanted to let you know that this edit to Template:Infobox Software broke screenshot sizes. Can't edit this important template, please revert. ⸺ RandomStaplers 02:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
|screenshot_size=
. Without that underscore, the size parameter was ignored and the default size of 300px was used. I fixed that ibox and the testcases table on the
testcases page as well.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:R to person. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Template:R to person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The article John Fetterman (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Pointless disambiguation page.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs)
06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
In acknowledgement of your revert, thank you—I wasn't sure if I could expand the existing RM to include a secondary option (and if so, how it is done), or if it absolutely requires a new RM to be generated for the secondary option. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for moving my close request! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, re
this ediy - since when has <u>...</u>
been deprecated? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
14:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
[https://www.tutorialspoint.com/html5/html5_deprecated_tags.htm here]
It seems that any attempt to leave this page as an article, rather than a redirect, is being reverted. This goes against the consensus you found in the RM. Can you maybe recommend the course of action, not familiar with this type of situation. Thanks! 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.@
Paine Ellsworth: Hi, just curious if I could request to add module4
to the source code? Since my previous edit request has been reverted and I don't wish to argue or debate further with those 2 editor since they are not understanding enough and sorry to say this, quite stubborn as well. I believe adding module4
to directly below module3
is considered non-controversial changes hence I would like your view on it before I submit an request. —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝)
01:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Please revert your move back again. The consensus is outdated and was based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. The company is no longer Entercom. As it stands the article is at a plainly factually incorrect title. WP:NOTBURO and all that. oknazevad ( talk) 01:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Redirects from molecular formulas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paine, could you look at Talk:Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority#Requested move 21 March 2021, and see if you concur with the close? I don't, but am not ready to talk to the closer yet. (You can choose not to get involved, or to respond privately. if you'd rather.) Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 02:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in how you arrived at your decision regarding consensus on the above move. From what I can see, the raw vote count is 5 support v 2 oppose, with a comment (mine) which clearly leans oppose. However, on closer inspection, two of the support votes are from the same user (neither give any information to back up the support) and a third support vote also doesn't give any information to back it up. I would say this looks more like a no consensus close to me. Regards, Gricehead ( talk) 06:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
two of the support votes [of the five] are from the same user
At Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia/ Racism in Ethiopia? The RM was closed as move, relisted following vocal objections by a single editor who logged in his object, then nobody else participated in the move. It's still is pretty clear as a consensus for move with a single objection. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:R to historic name has been
nominated for merging with
Template:R to former name. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Tamwin (
talk)
00:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.I tried to tag you in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir but failed due to bad spelling. This message is to reduce clutter on that page with a corrected ping. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:R case. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Template:R case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
192.76.8.91 (
talk)
21:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you mind giving your thoughts on User:Elli/rcat standardization sometime soon? I'd like to get consensus to get this implemented in {{ rcat shell}} automatically, followed by a bot to remove all the duplicated templates - but since we've had conflicts here before, I'd like to get us to have consensus before I take any action otherwise. Elli ( talk | contribs) 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
|bot-added=
, that the bot would use, that would add it to a different category instead (only done if the redirect is not in any rcats that aren't sensed automatically, ofc, because if it is then it wouldn't sort to Miscellaneous redirects).
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
01:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I wanted to ask you about your relist note. It seems proper procedure wasn't followed when this was first overturned/relisted, when it should have been immediately moved back at the beginning of the relist period (See WP:MRV #6). Your actions yesterday moving it back, while appreciated, appears to have now added an additional 7 days to the listing period, which you note. But is it appropriate for you to reference your own actions with passivity and without acknowledging your part? All this has done is delay getting a decision on a topic that has 12 participants, eight of whom oppose the move? I know these aren't headcounts, but it seems more than enough participation for someone to make a determination at this point. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 14:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paine, do you know how to fix botched move proposals? See Talk:Lunar Gateway#Requested move 1 June 2021. Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 04:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.
You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk)
00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I will probably have to have someone go through with a bot and change the erroneous parameter on the small number of articles. It also appears quite a few articles aren't categorized into those task forces either (they are relatively new compared to the others) as I saw when I went to edit a talk page... UGH... Noah Talk 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
![]()
|
Perhaps you should consider putting yourself forward for further tools. So many of my supporters are better contributors than I. My success so far, such as it is, has been to stay largely out of the spotlight and just soldier. Please contact me if I'm out of line or need additional eyes. BusterD ( talk) 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paine, hope that you're. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a member of WikiProject Redirect? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here ( User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject redirects interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
To editor Tom (LT): Please see User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox. Wasn't sure how you wanted to format it in your sandbox, so there you will find my responses. Thank you so much for this chance to bring more light to our projects! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 00:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Template:Karnataka Legislative Assembly election, 2013 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
15:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Template:Karnataka state assembly elections, 2004 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
![]()
|
Hi, I mentioned you at ANI in the last hour. Should have done it as a ping, sorry. - Sitush ( talk) 13:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI, I moved the discussion you started about malformed requested moves to my bot's talk. Part of my ~bimonthly archiving to get my talk page back down to a reasonable size.
I don't follow why Government of New Zealand is an "incorrect name". There was once a consensus to move to that name. Ngrams indicates that many sources use that name. Government of the United States is a valid redirect, as is United States Government. These are all just {{ R from alternative name}} titles.
{{ R from incorrect name}} – an erroneous name – implies, with some sense of urgency, that something needs to be fixed. "Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target without the use of a piped link that hides the correct details." That's not what this is. At the moment, the "incorrect name" template is basically ignored. Nobody that I'm aware of is taking any action based on it.
Finally, I've cleared Category:Pages with templates requiring substitution down to just 30 items (up until yesterday there were hundreds of pages in that category). Most of what's left seems to be caused by {{ Thank You IP}}, which requires substution because it auto-signs when substituted. This is counter to the behavior of other similar templates such as {{ Thank you}}, {{ Thank you very much}}, {{ Thank}}, and {{ WikiThanks}}, none of which auto-sign or require substitution. I'd like to solve this issue by removing the auto-sign feature and substitution requirement from {{ Thank You IP}}. The signature is located in an unconventional place, before the Please consider creating an account for yourself! line rather than at the end of that line, which would be the usual place to expect a signature. I fixed one of these, but it's a tedious job to "substitute" after the fact, keeping the original signature that the editor put in the usual place.
Sorry this is a malformed message because it covers three different topics. Thanks
wbm1058 (
talk)
23:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kadabra (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadabra. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:R from initials. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Template:R from initials until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tevildo (
talk)
18:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there I saw your comments on the RFC here I don't understand what does "No consequences" outcome meant here and now which RFC should be followed the one in 2018? or the one in 2015? LiamKhan469 ( talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 7#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
dud
hhr
Contribs
19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't intend the comment here as a personal attack, but since you've understood it that way, I'm happy to withdraw it. I think it would make most sense to delete the first sentence, rather than striking it, and in that case it would make sense to delete your comment also. Would you be happy with this? Havelock Jones ( talk) 11:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
![]()
|
Hello Paine, I noticed the second sentence under the heading "Purpose" in Template:Infobox Australian place reads: "... may be substed." Maybe you'd like to fix it. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 07:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, please can you either properly close the DRASTIC description, taking into account all the comments solicited, or undo your close so that I can may reopen it as per WP:RFC policy? The RfC was opened to build consensus on a neutral description of the group, and was withdrawn under unusual circumstances, leaving us with the problem unresolved. The current "internet activists" description is not neutral, and more consistent with the WP:GLOBALTIMES description than other WP:RS descriptions. 217.35.76.147 ( talk) 19:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I recently requested an image edit to Portal:Afghanistan. And while the consensus you asked is kind of challenging to give, I will try my best to summarize it:
I'll admit this being a poor research, might be able to prove the required consensus. What do you think? Interesting Geek ( talk) 19:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Portal|Afghanistan}}
, and thus far I have not seen a consensus of editors to change the flag in that template. Can you link to a discussion that is specifically about changing the flag in this template?
P.I. Ellsworth -
ed.
put'r there
01:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Broad consensus in favour of updating the article to reflect current regime.It is still hard to prove which flag to be used, but to eliminate potential NPOV or such, both or no flags should be shown. I would just wait it out to see any major developments. Interesting Geek ( talk) 03:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi P.I. Ellsworth,
I hope you don't mind me contacting you, but I've noticed that you seem knowledgeable about how RfC's work and I was hoping you could point me in the right direction here. There is an RFC that has been going on for almost three weeks, and had no replies until today for almost two weeks. Today, an involved editor pinged six users asking for their contribution, and there are concerns about canvasing, specifically about whether they pinged a partisan crowd.
I haven't been involved in RfC's involving a possible canvassing issue, so I am not quite sure how to proceed.
Thank you for any guidance you can provide, BilledMammal ( talk) 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Your recent change to Module:Infobox gene has created a lot of "expressed in" links to disambiguation pages Colon, Appendix, Fundus, and perhaps others I haven't noted yet. I'm not sufficiently adept in Lua to figure out where this is coming from, but it doesn't seem to be from Wikidata, since the Wikidata item for Colon, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5982337, correctly links to the Wikipedia article Colon (anatomy), not to the disambiguation page. Hope you can figure out the cause and the fix! -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
Thank you for your kind words. ❤ I appreciate it very much. And you have my apologies in advance in case the tone in my messages may sound a bit too harsh. However my presence in the discussion isn't helpful, it will be better for you there without me. Take care and have a beautiful day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I have replied to your apology on FOARP's talk page but I felt I wanted to leave you a more personal message here on your talk page if you dont mind? Listen, there is no need to be hard on yourself. You did nothing wrong. You believed what was right and you pursued it. That's all. The fact that you felt there was something that in your view iy seemed off and you attempted to correct it, doesn't necessarily mean it was a waste of time for the others. You did what you had to do. That's all. you did the best in your capacity so that it gets corrected and balanced in the way you believe it is better, and that alone is worth a praise and recognition, not apology! Apologizing for doing the right thing isn't going to help Wikipedia. If you want to help, that is to continue the scrutiny that has characterized your efforts (like how we saw at Imia at least). This is how everybody should be doing, IMO if we want to keep POV warriors at check. Wishing you a good day and if there is anything I can do for you, please don't hesitate to come to my talk page! Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
Even in the most heated of debates, I admire how you remained kind and calm and I think we all can learn from that. And thank you for your kind words the other day! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
RE Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Imia/Kardak (closed). I only posted a few words there, but it was very complicated case, I could see very well where you were coming from, and there were times when I was contemplating strong support of your nomination. In the end, I fell as I !voted, but it was not obvious. It was a fair nomination, not a waste of time. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)