User talk:Asukite
AIM-174 Pre-Move Review Discussion
[edit]Howdy,
Thank you for your review of the AIM-174B move request and I apologize for bothering you yet again. As per WP:RM I am initiating this talk page discussion prior to initiating a move review request. Your closing reason would seem to support my original request (a move to AIM-174). We needn't have any discussion regarding variants in the future if the page is not named after a specific variant. Per WP:CONSISTENT, no other missile page is named after a particular variant. The AIM-54A and B variants were phased-out; Should the article be named "AIM-54C?" That's my line of thinking, anyways. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should not be assuming that the "B" variant is the only operational variant (indeed, we do have confirmation of the XAIM-174B, CATM-174B, and DATM-174B, of which the AIM-174B is a derivative of — at least of the XAIM-174B) especially when it comes to a 'special access program.' The 'B' is also an uneeded WP:DISAMBIG. In-response to the opposing viewpoints: "AIM-174" is freely-used among sources[1][2][3] and in response to the idea that "assuming there are other variants is WP:CRYSTALBALL" — using "AIM-174" is not inherently assuming there are other variants. It is the name of a missile. We just so happen to only be aware of a single operational variant. I would argue that — as I said previously — specifying "B" in the title is actually the crystal ball violation, adding an unnecessary disambiguation to a known practice of how missiles are named. Additionally, WP:CONCISE should be considered, and WP:PRECISE is not violated with "AIM-174" as it is the name of the missile and it does not disrupt locating the article. Also, I would like it to be noted and taken-into consideration that the page was moved to "AIM-174B" without discussion. It was not a technical move, and a discussion should have been opened per WP:MOVE. If anything, the page should be reverted to the original name, minus "air-to-air missile" per CONCISE. I think that about covers it, thanks again!! MWFwiki (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @MWFwikiThanks for the thorough explanation, I think that might warrant re-opening the discussion with this info you sent me, to enable the participants to consider this (especially the part about the undiscussed move, which I was not aware of and probably would/will have a measurable impact on the outcome of the RM)
- Sorry if I caused any disruption, I will go ahead and reverse my close shortly. ASUKITE 20:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, appreciated :) MWFwiki (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
References
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
[edit]- News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning
- Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper
- In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
- Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South
- Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night
- Book review: The Editors
- Humour: The Newspaper Editors
- Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug
Administrator Elections: Discussion phase
[edit]The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 22–24 - Discussion phase
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–? - Scrutineering phase
During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Additional Redirects for the Damn Damned..
[edit]Hey, thank you so much for your help in sweeping up that mess.
I was just unchecking the other redirects off my watchlist though, and one of them was still a double redirect. There were a few others as well. Just thought I'd let you know, and ask if you wouldn't mind fixing those too? (Or just wait for the inevitable bot cleanup? Haha.) In any event, here they all are:
- These are the damned
- These are the Damned
- The Damned (1961 film) (Literally stupid, because despite the article previously being named The Damned (1963 film) yet also listing its premiere date as ## ___ 1962, the lede paragraph said 1961 film—so that explains this one……*facepalm*)
--Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- P.S.
- All other combos of These Are the Damned are definitely not in existence…thank heavens, haha. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Cinemaniac86 Thanks for letting me know, I try to fix as many of the redirects as I can manually as the bot can take days in some cases. As for the redlinks, all case variations (and even some spelling/punctuation differences) are handled automatically by mediawiki, so if you click those links they will not work, but any entry into the search bar should still properly redirect, rendering those unnecessary. ASUKITE 16:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, 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,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Voting phase
[edit]The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.
As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–? - Scrutineering phase
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of AIM-174B. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. MWFwiki (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for listing the AIM-174B discussion at the Close requests page. I wasn't even aware that page existed. And yes, I realize that it would have been improper for you to close it at that point. I was just hoping you or the other user knew of a way to expedite getting it closed. And you did. So thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
[edit]- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?
RE: Talk:LVOA-C
[edit]Please note: There hasn't been any discussion yet, the other comments immediately below the move template are from 2017. I made the mistake of posting the template at the top of the page, but nothing else there is related. I have moved it to the bottom again, as it should be, and re-merged my duplicate comment. I apologize for any confusion. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Adolphus79 No problem, I'd be a hypocrite if I said I don't make my own share of mistakes around here, and I didn't even notice that the content from the top wasn't actually part of the discussion. I just didn't want the discussion to end up delayed due to that, thanks for letting me know! ASUKITE 14:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's actually what made me move it, because the comment immediately below now appeared to be related to the request at first glance. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)