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.

I'm not sure if you saw the before version [1] before making this edit. [2] I'm not entirely sure how long animals have been included in the language of Wikipedia:Days of the year, but it didn't start with me. I certainly think including something like the death of the last passenger pigeon wouldn't be unreasonable; arguably that could be better fitted under the events section. I was just trying not to rock too many boats while making what I thought was a reasonable and incremental change. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rick Block! I'm not sure if I should ask someone else but I am new to Wikipedia and you seem like a polite guy. Last night I was editing some of the articles for the band Underworld as they could have been otherwise misleading to readers given their state, after editing some of the articles about their albums I began to receive notifications from a user named "emotionalllama" saying that I was not stating what was factual (in fact I was, being a huge fan of the band, I am, as you could imagine, well up to date on their history and therefore know what they have and have not done). After a period of time they began to threaten me with account bans and blocks by posting Wikipedia policy quotes and started saying I was "disruptive" (perhaps I may have made some mistakes, but that is understandable I hope because I only joined Wikipedia a matter of hours ago). After finding out they were not an administrator, I searched the list of users, I found them but they're account link was in red, not a blue link. It also seems that they created this account a matter of minutes after I began editing and then deleted it (or got banned) after I responded to them on their talk page. I'm not sure, but surely there has to be some kind of rule or penalty for people pretending to be administrators and then using that to bully new editors. Whilst I may have made some mistakes, as I am a diehard fan if this band (seeing them in March) I think I know what I'm talking about when I edit any article related to them. Perhaps I may have violated policy but if that was the case, I didn't mean to. The controversy was in relation to their discography, the article lists the album "dubnobasswithmyheadman" as their third album when it is regarded by the members Karl Hyde and Rick Smith as their debut. Before this they released two other albums "Underneath The Radar" and "Change The Weather" also under the name Underworld, however these albums are regarded as being by a separate band that also happened to be called 'Underworld' due to the significant difference in their music style and genre and because the lineup was different (although Karl and Rick were part of this band). Therefore "dubnonasswithmyheadman" should be regarded as their first album, "Second Toughest In The Infants" their second album, Beaucoup Fish their third and so on, you get the idea, instead of them being listed as their third, fourth and fifth albums (the discography extends on) to avoid confusion. These edits I speak of were made by me before I decided it was better to create an account.

Many Thanks,

Underworldfan97 Underworldfan97 ( talk) 10:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this issue has already been resolved. -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cricket deliveries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Four years ago ...

dutiful bots and personal advice
... you were recipient no. 162 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 04:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

... and six -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

... and seven! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the bot messed up the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations with this . I have reverted it. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 19:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, some people do not want their usernames on WP:WBFAN. Removing their names from the relevant "List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations" pages would be difficult if they were sole nominator. Can the bot maintain and reference a list of names to be skipped? Perhaps the logic would be: if username is a co-nominator for a given FA, skip that username but do record other con-nominators on WBFAN; if username is sole nominator, skip that entire FA. [Your suggestions also solicited] Thanks!!!!   Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who does not want their name listed at WP:WBFAN could delete their name from the relevant "by year" nomination summary page, e.g. WP:FA2016. The bot reconstructs the WBFAN page every day based on the current content of the by-year summary pages. Would this suffice? -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The question of whether that would suffice would need to be answered by several editors separately and individually, at different points in the future. All I know is that it would be a burdensome task for those who have more than five or six FAs, and would be especially so if they are the sole nominator, because they'd have to delete an entire FA entry rather than merely removing their own username from a field of co-nominators... I dunno what language bots use, but in Python etc. this is an easy fix that has the added virtue of being reversible: Just manually create/maintain a separate page with a list of usernames to be skipped; then bot skips those usernames when writing out wp:wbfan. It's reversible in the sense that a person can later *remove* their username from that list. Then the bot simply doesn't find that name on the skip list during next run, so the name is not skipped, but instead is simply re-added to wbfan. Ta da.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this because you do not want your username listed at WBFAN? Would deleting the relevant entries from the by-year nomination summary page(s) suffice for you? I'm suggesting this approach on the assumption that someone who does not want their username listed at WBFAN would also not want their username listed at, say, WP:FA2016. It's also reversible (albeit not as easily). -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally like WBVANITY (I mean WBFAN). But I am deeply familiar with the phenomenon that some people do not like such things. I am a teacher, and once in my first or second year of teaching I made the mistake of casually mentioning (during class) the name of the top student in the class. That girl came to me in tears (I was stunned) and asked me never to "make a public announcement" again...I don't think anyone cares about WP:FA2016 or similar pages, because those pages are obscure. It also probably isn't an issue that credit can be retrieved by searching, since everyone knows that contribs are ultimately public by licensing policy anyhow. I think it's the fact that WBFAN is the beacon (it's the vanity page, the "public announcement") that some people find off-putting (I like to use that word whenever I can :-)).  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erin Dolgan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Dolgan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BethNaught ( talk) 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

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

Hi Rick Block.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rick Block,

Maybe you can help me (or someone else - with moderator rights) I have some issues with a editor ( User:Cplakidas) about the rules and conventions. He is making his own rules: by grouping events or reverting my edits. I think he is suffering from editcontitis. He becomes a "Page Patroller" and corrects my edits (for the sole purpose to increase his own edits). We must respect each other and must realize we all try to get along. He talks about the terms of 'first occurrences' (what terms?) and don't accept my edits with capitalizations issues. His opinion (as editor) is more important than to work together as civilized people. He says: "Capitalization of 'caliph' is just a fig leaf for what is petty tit-for-tat editing. Grow up." I don't accept this...and it 'piss me off' when people don't have respect for each other (while we are doing the same thing). We are anonymous volunteers (and I am 'proud' to be part of it). Anyone, with internet access can write his own edits (without violating the rules). I hope you can correct this inappropriate behavior. Peters01 ( talk) 22:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)