Misplaced Pages

User talk:SarekOfVulcan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:52, 7 August 2009 editSarah777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,573 edits →WTF?: deja vu again!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:11, 27 December 2024 edit undoSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,701 edits rm signposts 
Line 1: Line 1:
]
]
'''''Note:''' if I've made a clearly bad block, such as something that appears to be vandalism at first glance but actually has a good explanation, please unblock without waiting for me to come back online. If it's something less clear, please at least get consensus on AN/I first. Thanks.''
{{troutme}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}} {{archive box|auto=yes}}
<center> <center>
{| id="toc" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;" {| id="toc" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;"
! align="left" style="background:#ccccff" width="100%" | Please add new comments in . Thanks. ] ! align="left" style="background:#ccccff" width="100%" | Please add new comments in . Thanks.
|} |}
{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}
</center> </center>

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see ].


{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 64K |maxarchivesize = 128K
|counter = 15 |counter = 26
|minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
Line 18: Line 20:
}} }}


== Your assistance please... ==


I saw which closes with a rhetorical ''"... it stays out. Clear?"'' and, no offense, found it quite unclear.


== Wendy Carlos Reversion ==
I didn't know this comment . I had been trying my best to find a tactful way to explain how unclear I found your comment. I spent about 20 minutes on that reply:
:{| class="wikitable"
|
:No, sorry, what you wrote is not clear.


Hi SarekOfVulcan
:If you are agreeing with Iqinn that the article shouldn't say he was confirmed to have "reengaged in terrorism", you are agreeing with a straw argument. I am not arguing the article should state he was confirmed to have "reengaged in terrorism". As I wrote on I am concerned that Iqinn's concerns are partially based on a no-doubt well-intentioned misunderstanding of how limited the NYTimes ombudsman's apology was.
You reverted my research on Wendy Carlos based on ancestry.com and archives.com, however these websites are based on information from official US documents, so what's the issue? ] (]) 21:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
:], the NYTimes ombudsman, acknowledged that the May 21 article headline, and its first paragraph, stated, or strongly implied, that all 74 of the former captives had been confirmed to have reengaged in terrorism. He pointed out that buried in later paragraphs in the article it did make clear that some of the 74 former captives were merely suspected of having reengaged in terrorism.


Hello,
:This is a very limited retraction.
|}


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
Your comment, while still not completely clear, is a lot clearer now that I know it should be read in the context of the edit you made a minute earlier.


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
What I am going to request is, if a comment you leave on a talk page should be read in the context of an edit you made to the article, as a courtesy to other readers, could you please give some indication of that, in the comment? And, if you make an edit to an article, that you plan to expand on, on the talk page, could you indicate that in the edit summary? I know I am not the only contributor who thinks that sometimes it is best to simply put an edit summary that says something like: ''"reverting -- see talk"'', or ''"excising due to WP:ABCDEF concerns -- see talk"''.


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
The final aspect of your comment -- ''"... it stays out. Clear?"'' This '''''could''''' be interpreted as a warning from an administrator. I am going to assume that when a wikipedia contributor who is also a wikipedia administrator, feels they have to don their administrator authority, to make a ruling, or issue a warning, they will do so in a way that makes clear that they are doing so as an administrator.


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Iqinn has already characterized your edits as administrator's rulings. They characterized you as ''"an uninvolved administrator"''. But, if your initial edits of yesterday were edits made as an ordinary wikipedia contributor, and then today, you thought administrator intervention was called for, you couldn't assume administrator authority to make those edits yourself because you aren't uninvolved. Do you think I have that right?


Kind Regards,
It seems to me that if you thought Iqinn, or myself, or some other contributor to this article or discussion merited an administrator warning your choices would be the same as any contributor who wasn't an administrator. You'd have to either let it slide, leave a note on one of the noticeboards, or contact another administrator directly -- do you think I have that right?


]
I don't remember crossing paths with you before. Hello. I do my best to take all civil, serious comments about my contributions to article space seriously. If you have serious concerns I will take them seriously, and give you a serious response, without regard to whether you are in a position to assume administrator authority.


Thanks! ] (]) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC) <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->
:Hello. :-) The thing is, accusing someone of being a terrorist and being wrong is one of the biggest BLP violations we can come up with these days. Even saying they're ''suspected'' of terrorism is beyond the pale, unless there's really good information to back it up -- and a single line in a report with no supporting details is not "really good information". Hence, the BLP policy demands that we leave it out -- and if necessary, I will claim administrative authority here. Since my reasoning was the same both times, and I haven't done anything else on the article, I still consider myself uninvolved. (As opposed to the Ireland articles, where I started out enforcing an Arbcom decision, and then found myself interested enough that I recused myself from (most) admin action.)
:The other edit we've crossed paths on today, the medical information implying force-feeding, I'm not as sure about. As a programmer for a medical practice, I take medical privacy very seriously. On the other hand, this is information that's been released by the US government, and would therefore be public domain. It's an interesting conflict -- never mind when you start including other countries' laws as well. On that one, I'm just acting as another editor.--] (]) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==
== Duly noted ==


] from the past month (October 2024).
Duly noted. See my recent explanation on ] for why I am so frustrated with the vandals and keep losing my temper. Yes, I know that I need to keep it civil regardless, but the admins have got to start imposing semi-protection on a lot more articles because the vandalism has really got out of control this year. --] (]) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


]
== 194x144x90x118, should this go back to Arbitration? ==


] '''Administrator changes'''
I am inclined to file an arbitration request. The last time ArbCom rejected it, it was due to this being an apparent content dispute on a single article. This time, it is a clear behavioral issue, because 194x144x90x118 has plunged himself into three disputes, and in all of them there are serious user conduct issues.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
*The ] case, which was the main reason for the RFC.
|]
*The ] case which is what I described in my view on the RFC.
}}
*The ] case, where 194x144x90x118 was warned about on talkpages, and returned yesterday with . He has in the intermediary fought a campaign to introduce a "criticism" section to the EU article.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
] does not appear to have gotten us anywhere, because the behavior is still the same, and with three cases, I cannot figure out how mediation is supposed to work, so the ArbCom admonition about insufficient attempt at dispute resolution doesn't appear to apply anymore. ] ] 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
|]
:I'm not going to opine on this at the moment. If you want to pursue it, you might want to check in with some of the arbs who declined the first time around and see if you have information that would change their mind.--] (]) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== ] nomination of ] ==
:] ]


] '''Oversighter changes'''
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you edited, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:] ]


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Threats ==
* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.


] '''Technical news'''
There is no reason to threaten me. Changing the links doesn't break anything, regardless of the decision on what should be done with the redirect. ] (]) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}
:It might break something -- after all, the second step in ] is "revert". --] (]) 23:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::No, it won't break anything. It should have been done when the page move occurred. ] (]) 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::And, what to do with the links in articles is not and has not been under discussion. Only where to point ] itself. ] (]) 23:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:::The page move should not have been done without any discussion whatsoever. The proper response _would_ have been to revert it, but I'm willing to consider that it's at the correct location now.--] (]) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, I'm not the one who moved it, and the actions I am taking are in good faith. You'd better be ready to justify your overreaction and your threatening attitude if you block me. I'm not the only one fixing the links, so you'd also better treat everyone doing so the same. ] (]) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
As you are ''involved'' in the issue, you'd have a conflict of interest as an admin if you blocked me. I am going to continue until a get a warning from an uninvolved admin. ] (]) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
:I'd _really_ suggest getting that second opinion before I block you. --] (]) 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
:Whether I'm involved or not, it will be a clear case of blocking to protect the encyclopedia, not an abuse of the tools. Discuss anywhere you like, but until there's consensus on the move and the proper location of the article on the Linux distro, making further changes would be disruptive.--] (]) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]


----
::It's not harming the encyclopedia. Even if the article is moved again, ] will redirect to its new location. Your argument is weak and without merit. ] (]) 23:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
:::Double redirects don't work, remember. It's just making a lot more work for someone to clean up, if there's another move. --] (]) 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
* ]
::::It wouldn't be a double redirect. It would be a pipe to a proper redirect, even if the article is moved. A pipe isn't a redirect. ] (]) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
* ]
I see what you are saying, but there's really not a problem with specifying the links. It would link directly to the redirect, and not to a double redirect (kind of confusing haha). I'm fairly sure that this will be just fine technically, and anyway, if you take a look at ], it says that a bot (] being one of them) goes through and fixes double redirects. Do you agree that it will be fine for Yworo to go ahead and make the fixes? '''] (])''' 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
* ]
:I'm going to tell Yworo to go ahead. There won't be a double redirect problem. Thanks, '''] (])''' 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1254686817 -->


== Ubuntu Links == == Revert question ==


Hi, I was wondering if you go into a little more detail on why you reverted my edits on changing to outgoing rather than incumbent. The reason why I put those in is because a new president and vice president has just been elected so since they are leaving office soon, putting them as a lame duck seems to make the most sense. I'd be willing to hear your arguments on keeping the incumbent on both the president and VP pages. I'm not sure if there was a time that we used the term outgoing for politicians leaving office, but it just doesn't make sense to keep incumbent there. ] (]) 16:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
OK, I have stopped "fixing" links... But... could you please explain why "(operating system)" might not be "the correct dab term anyway"? I am confused, since it seems correct... should we have "Ubuntu (Canonical)" or "Ubuntu (software)"? Is that the issue? I am not complaining, not at all, but I am simply curious about the issue... Cheers. --] (]) 02:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


:But they are the incumbents. We don't need any further editorializing. Leave that to the headline writers. --] 16:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm curious about that too. If you look at ], you'll find it's pretty much the standard disabiguation used for those distros that need disambiguation, as for example on ]. ] (]) 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


== Books & Bytes – Issue 65 ==
::Since that seems to be the standard, I won't argue. I was thinking "Ubuntu (Linux distribution)" might be better, but I don't see that that formulation is actually used at the moment. --] (]) 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
:::Yes, it might be... but not ''enough'' better to make changes. BTW, I am discovering what appear to be a concerted effort to promote and link to the Ubuntu article, above and beyond what might have developed naturally. For example, almost every piece of free software seems to have a screenshot of it running on Ubuntu, even if that was not the origin of the software. For example, Debian-developed tools are not shown running on Debian but instead on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is gratuituously mentioned as an example of Linux even when other distros are not. Or every mention of Ubuntu is linked in an article even though other distros are linked only once, etc., etc. ] (]) 12:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
]</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
Issue 65, September – October 2024
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
* Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Misplaced Pages Library
* Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
* Tech tip: Mass downloads
<big>''']'''</big>
</div>
</div>
<small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=27730094 -->


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
::::I would be hesitant to call it a conspiracy -- all it really needs is one person interested in posting screenshots who has Ubuntu instead of Debian to cause that result -- and isn't Ubuntu Debian-derived, anyhow? Also, it could just be someone who doesn't understand that you're only supposed to link a term once per article, or per section, adding the links. I'll do a run through with AWB later and see if I can reduce the overlinking, if you haven't already taken care of it by then. --] (]) 14:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello,
:::::Well, I'd hesitate to call it a conspiracy too. It'd only take a couple people working independently, as you say. Some of them are the same people who push using GNU/Linux everywhere instead of just Linux.... ] (]) 14:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
== re: canvassing ==


Take the survey ''''''.
I noticed that when you created the RFC, you only included it in the science and technology topic, when the matter is clearly of interest to the religion and philosophy topic. Was that a form of canvassing? I wish the rfc template would allow three topics, because we could use some input from languages and linguistics as well. ] (]) 18:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:It was not canvassing, because you always have to pick one primary topic for an RFC, and since the article that was moved was the OS article, it definitely went in the SciTech category. If you want to add it manually to the philosophy and linguistics pages, that would probably be a good thing.--] (]) 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, the template takes two topics... but not three... I added "reli" almost immediately. ] (]) 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::: *raises eyebrow* Gee, nice of them to mention that in the RFC instructions.... --] (]) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Somebody probably added it later. If they'd have been a better coder, we'd probably be able to use 10. Unfortunately anything beyond simple template code is gobbledy-gook to me or I'd try my hand at it. As is, I'd just end up irreparably breaking it, then reverting. ] (]) 19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
By the way, I wanted to compliment you on that proactive move protection. I doubt it would have been much longer before somebody decided that move warring was a good idea.... and boy, could that get messy. ] (]) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
: *bows* Thank you. ] can come in terribly handy at times... --] (]) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


]
: That at least is true, even if it's at ] right now obviously. ] - ] 12:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== WTF? ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Who do you think you are? What exactly gives you the power to delete the spreadsheet from the IrlProj and then my page? ] (]) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:I am Garrett Fitzgerald, and the "edit" button gives me the power to delete the spreadsheet. Any more questions?--] (]) 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
:Yes. I can "restore". Any questions? ] (]) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
::I like the first version better. *pictures giant radioactive ant coming over the horizon....* --] (]) 01:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::Sarah, I apologize for messing with your typo fix above and then protecting the page for an hour so you couldn't re-fix it. It was an improper use of the mop, and I shouldn't have done it.--] (]) 08:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


</div>
::::Hey - I didn't complain! I wasn't being as good as I should have either:) And you know, the second version really was better..... ] (]) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
== 3RR ==


] from the past month (November 2024).
I'm sure you are aware of 3RR being an admin but just in case it slipped your mind you might want to have a read over it again and stop edit warring ]. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:And I'm sure you're aware of ]. Have a nice day.--] (]) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:: Which one do you want me to use for my reason their are a few of them, have you read them yourself? <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:::I have no idea what this row is about but I'd just like to point out that I have breached the Vulcan defences. Shields down, eh? ] (]) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
::::"Launch everything we've got! ]!"--] (]) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


]
== Ubuntu proposal humour ==

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:''(Hey, wait a second... why's everyone agreeing with me? Shouldn't somebody be complaining at ANI about the rouge admin?)''
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
No, we're too busy trying to figure out how to score World Cup tickets from South Africa over this...except we can't decide whether it's for a soccer or football event. :) —''']''' (]) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


] '''Arbitration'''
Naw, it's really all because you are agreeing with me (sort of). Keep it up and you'll go far. :-) ] (]) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
== ANI ==
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== WP:ANI ==
You have been mentioned in ]. <font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 06:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, don't start an . If you have what to say, do it ], until the question is solved. --] (]) 17:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:11, 27 December 2024

Note: if I've made a clearly bad block, such as something that appears to be vandalism at first glance but actually has a good explanation, please unblock without waiting for me to come back online. If it's something less clear, please at least get consensus on AN/I first. Thanks.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.
Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online


Wendy Carlos Reversion

Hi SarekOfVulcan You reverted my research on Wendy Carlos based on ancestry.com and archives.com, however these websites are based on information from official US documents, so what's the issue? Egrabczewski (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Revert question

Hi, I was wondering if you go into a little more detail on why you reverted my edits on changing to outgoing rather than incumbent. The reason why I put those in is because a new president and vice president has just been elected so since they are leaving office soon, putting them as a lame duck seems to make the most sense. I'd be willing to hear your arguments on keeping the incumbent on both the president and VP pages. I'm not sure if there was a time that we used the term outgoing for politicians leaving office, but it just doesn't make sense to keep incumbent there. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But they are the incumbents. We don't need any further editorializing. Leave that to the headline writers. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Misplaced Pages Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Misplaced Pages Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please, don't start an edit war. If you have what to say, do it here, until the question is solved. --Tamtam90 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Category: