User talk:Jontesta
Hi Jontesta, I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia and thank you for your good work on the simulation-related articles (such as your addition to Life simulation game). Perhaps you were active earlier anonymously, but you seem to have grasped WP:V/WP:CITE quickly. If you're interested, we have a videogames wikiproject that may be useful to you. Cheers, Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warm welcome. Jontesta (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Good work!
[edit]Hi there! I just wanted to congratulate you on the excellent changes to the Adventure game article, especially the definition section, which I put all the way down the article originally because I knew it needed this sort of work ;) I look forward to seeing what other improvements you can make to this and other video game articles! Playclever (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! I noticed you were very active on the article as well. It's good to have knowledgeable editors on the topic. I will probably add some more later this week in the Adventure_game#Game_design section. I think the subheadings will be a useful way to categorize it but they may change as I add more. Jontesta (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 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 2020 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 |
I contested Ruritania, and thought it was probably just a momentary glitch on your part, but then noticed that you had also proposed Slough of Despond for deletion. If you really think that these are uncontroversial deletion candidates then you need to adjust your sights enormously before proposing any more articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
[edit]
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Le Panini [🥪] 23:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
- – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Island of Ham into The Book of Dave. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 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 2021 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 |
Categories
[edit]Hello, Jontesta,
Please do not empty a category "out of process". If you believe a category should be deleted, nominate it for deletion at Categories for Discussion. Just removing all of the contents of a category so it becomes empty is disruptive so please do not do this again. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see you've done this now with more than one category. Again, nominate categories for deletion, do not empty them in order that they are deleted. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Liz, if you check the articles in those categories, you'll notice that I didn't try to remove the tags from those articles to empty the categories. Rather, someone else filled them after they noticed they were empty. I did change the categories on two or three articles, and if the side effect is emptying the category, it will be up to someone else to decide whether to delete it or refill it with other suitable articles. I intend to continue this work of re-categorizing articles, and unless there's some policy that you think I violated, then I would appreciate you not accusing me of bad faith disruption. Happy editing. Jontesta (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Motor City Rockers
[edit]@Jontesta: You are invited to vote on the article Motor City Rockers. I greatly improved it from what it used to be. Catfurball (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jontesta! As we had this topic several times now I'd like to ask here, too: Would you consider doing the WP:BEFORE search - including searches at Google Books and Google Scholar - before doing more deletion nomations based on the absence of secondary sources? Thanks for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Daranios! I customarily do, and this is a reasonable thing to ask. I'll admit that a lot of google scholar links are behind passwords or paywalls, and it's possible I miss something. But seeing as most of the time I'm within the consensus, I consider my searches to be broad enough. (Many of the scholar links end up being trivial mentions, let alone essays written by students as part of an assignment.)
- That said, I appreciate you raising the issue here and in good faith. I have noticed you try to raise it in AFD and it's usually with a tone of accusation, let alone personal attacks. You may have noticed, it's my personal policy to not take the WP:BAIT, especially in an AFD where it can turn the discussion into deep threaded WP:BATTLEGROUND.
- Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. For the number of AFDs where you have been outside both, I think I'm being charitable by assuming good faith, that we have different views on what's a viable article. If I can do that for someone who is often out of step with Wikipedia consensus, you can certainly do that for the consensus that disagrees with you. I think your ask is reasonable, and I hope you see my request that way, too.
- Once again, I appreciate the way you're raising it here, and that's always the better way to handle this. Jontesta (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Jontesta! Thanks for your reply, and thanks for not taking (too much) offense, good to hear your side of the story. I did reply in the AfDs the way I did for two reasons:
- First it seemed to me that you might have not done such a (reasonably thorough) search repeatly, because I did not have a hard time to find sources in several cases when you did not find any. I may have more access to some paywalled sources, which might be part of the reason. In this case I would like to ask you to check out The Wikipedia Library for any promising paywalled hits. I am not sure if this available to every Wikipedia editor, but I hope you have access to it. It does cover quite a number of paywalled journals. Many Google Scholar hits may indeed be trivial mentions or students essays (likewise in any Google search), but a few significant mentions among the others are sufficient after all. Our standards of may also difffer, I try to always keep the "why" of the notability requirement in mind, looking if there's enough material overall for a short article.
- My second reason why I reacted badly to some of your nominations was the way you phrased them, along the lines "there are no reliable sources on this topic". This sounds very absolute, especially when I did find sources then (and like, in the last instance, such a statement seems to ignore a secondary source already present). You might have a reason to discount existing sources, but that was not apparent from your phrasing. So if you were to phrase it in less absolute terms, not stating them like you have the definite knowledge that no sources exist in this universe, but rather point to sources you did see in your WP:BEFORE search, and briefly explained why you found them insufficient, I would appreciate that. (Including in cases which are paywalled. It's quite a difference to state "there are no secondary sources, period" as compared to "these paywalled sources may or may not have potential, but I will not assume notability until someone with access will analyze them".)
- Anyway, so far for my side of things and explanation why I sounded cranky. I stand by what I have said contentwise. I apologize if I have crossed the line to incivility in tone. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
In your nomination, you confidently state several things that simply, and demonstrably, aren't true. I see you've gotten some input from Daranios, above, about BEFORE. So in this case, you either didn't do one, although your statements clearly imply you did, or you failed to find extant sources. I'm AGF'ing that that was the latter, and so here's a free tip: When searching on a fictional element for scholarly analysis, add the author's name to Google Scholar search. Another free tip? Don't nominate things you don't understand. If you seriously thought that Miraz, or any other major character with speaking lines in a C.S. Lewis work, doesn't have sufficient scholarly analysis to pass the notability bar, that is a WP:CIR failure. Please go fix your nomination to be less inaccurate, or, better yet, go withdraw the whole thing so it doesn't continue to make you look bad. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For your efforts to clean up low-quality articles at AfD and elsewhere, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
Accuracy concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater (Cars)
[edit]I hate to be back here again, but this nomination has avoidable problems:
This article is sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs, or promotional sources affiliated with the subject.
Could you please clarify how The Joplin Globe, Entertainment Weekly, Birmingham Mail, Popular Mechanics, or KSL-TV fit that description? All were present at the time of nomination, and 5 of 19 is a non-negligible number of sources.WP:BEFORE only revealed brief coverage that does not support a stand-alone Wikipedia article.
Please describe what BEFORE criteria you used, so I can help understand why you failed to find such.
- As before, I am assuming good faith that neither statement is an intentional falsehood. I would hate to see this sort of wildly inaccurate nomination turn into a pattern of behavior that could be interpreted as a user conduct issue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.
I am uncertain why you believed a PROD of Sally Carrera would be uncontroversial. Looking at Page info there are 50 page watchers, and it was getting 200+ pageviews per day. Regardless of your assessment of the notability and sourcing of the article, I do not see any attempt to merge or redirect the article. Please refrain from using PROD on articles that might be likely to attract opposition; in such cases, proceed directly to the AfD process, ideally with an accurate nomination summary. When in doubt about whether an article should be PRODded, I offer my services to assist you in evaluating such cases in the future. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Jclemens, it's time to cease trying to change every content disagreement into a WP:BUREAUCRATIC order. It's okay that we have a good faith disagreement about what belongs on Wikipedia. For seven days my PROD was uncontested, and it was seconded by another long-standing editor, before it was deleted by a competent administrator. That should be enough for you to see how other editors, in good faith, believe that the PROD would be uncontroversial. There are many times where a consensus of Wikipedians agree with what I'm doing, regardless of your viewpoint at the margin.
- To be fair, sometimes the circumstances are the total reverse, and we have each found ourselves at the margin of community consensus at different moments. Instead of using the community consensus as a cudgel to accuse you of abuse of process, I'm going to continue trusting the community to read everyone's comments about the content and make constructive decisions. I am kindly asking that you do the same, and keep your comments directed at the content instead of me as an editor. If you can't accept my basic request then I'm going to ask you to stay away from my talk page. Thank you. Jontesta (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Just wondering
[edit]If you have watchlisted deletion sorting pages? I find it useful to keep track with stuff, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't followed all of these but I will keep an eye out. I don't always have time but it's good to be aware of what's is around. Jontesta (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2022
[edit]- News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"
- In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
- Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
- Book review: Writing the Revolution
- Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
- Essay: The Six Million FP Man
- Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
- Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"
- Featured content: A great month for featured articles
- Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
- CommonsComix: Joker's trick
Time problems
[edit]Hello Jontesta! Just wanted to stop by with a comment to avoid misunderstandings: I did not forget about my recent dePRODs of the video game articles + Bat phone, and was going to look for sources eventually. It's just that there are so many activities with time constraints in my field of interest, i.e. deletion discussions, that I hardly get around to do any improvments on articles. We'll see if I can join the corresponding deletion discussions then. (I wish they did not happen with such a high frequency, to allow for the high time requirements of the search for proper sources...). Daranios (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Daranios, I am going to give these more time. It's always possible that I'm wrong and that significant coverage could be found for these games, and that's always a good thing. To keep the volume of deletion discussions to a manageable level, it's been my practice to cap my AFD activity to a handful per week (usually less AFDs and/or more time). Recently, I've added some PRODs for topics that I would assume to be uncontroversial. But anyone can revert a PROD, and if I disagree with that revert, my choices are to increase my activity at AFD or risk forgetting about the issue entirely. It's better for everyone involved if the volume of deletion processes allows a good faith discussion to happen. I likely won't revisit these games at AFD until the new year, and maybe that will give them time to improve. Jontesta (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 January 2023
[edit]- Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief
- Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"
- Essay: Mobile editing
- Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022
- Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes
- Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?
- Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!
- CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
The Signpost: 16 January 2023
[edit]- Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020
- News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion
- In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again
- Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery
- In focus: Busting into Grand Central
- Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100
- Featured content: Flip your lid
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
The Signpost: 4 February 2023
[edit]- From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function
- News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan
- Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos
- Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter
- Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour
- Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles
- Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea
- Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT
The Signpost: 20 February 2023
[edit]- In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage
- Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?
- Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK
- Featured content: Eden, lost.
- Gallery: Love is in the air
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!
- Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song
The Signpost: 9 March 2023
[edit]- News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?
- Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy
- In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?
- Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter
- Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
The Signpost: 20 March 2023
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate
- Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians
- In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences
- Featured content: Way too many featured articles
- Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA
- Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?
The Signpost: 03 April 2023
[edit]- From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions
- News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing
- Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid
- Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages
- Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic
The Signpost: 26 April 2023
[edit]- News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
- In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
- Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
- Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping
- Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022
- News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
- Humour: The law of hats
- Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
The Signpost: 8 May 2023
[edit]- News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
- In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
- Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
- Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion
- News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
The Signpost: 22 May 2023
[edit]- In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
- Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
- Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
- Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
The Signpost: 5 June 2023
[edit]- News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
- Featured content: Poetry under pressure
- Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye
The Signpost: 19 June 2023
[edit]- News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing
- Featured content: Content, featured
- Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
The Signpost: 3 July 2023
[edit]- Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Incensed
- Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?
The Signpost: 17 July 2023
[edit]- In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia
- Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)
- Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!
- Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master
The Signpost: 1 August 2023
[edit]- News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server
- In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change
- Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!
- Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!
- In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia
- Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
- Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July
- Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party
The Signpost: 15 August 2023
[edit]- News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects
- Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them
- Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing
- Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether
- Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed
- Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion
The Signpost: 31 August 2023
[edit]- From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online
- News and notes: You like RecentChanges?
- In the media: Taking it sleazy
- Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia
- Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties
- Humour: The Dehumourification Plan
- Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday
The Signpost: 16 September 2023
[edit]- In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?
- Obituary: Nosebagbear
- Featured content: Catching up
- Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic
The Signpost: 3 October 2023
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published
- Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"
- Featured content: By your logic,
- Poetry: "The Sight"
The Signpost: 23 October 2023
[edit]- News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?
- In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing
- Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements
- Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!
- Traffic report: The calm and the storm
- News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes
The Signpost: 6 November 2023
[edit]- Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015
- In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man
- Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023
- News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia
- Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
- Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.
- Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare
The Signpost: 20 November 2023
[edit]- In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
- News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
- Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
- Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
- Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 December 2023
[edit]- In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns
- Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"
- Comix: Bold comics for a new age
- Essay: I am going to die
- Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence
- Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain
- Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies
The Signpost: 24 December 2023
[edit]- Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?
- News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023
- In the media: Consider the humble fork
- Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI
- In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU
- Technology report: Dark mode is coming
- Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
- Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture
- Crossword: when the crossword is sus
- Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!
- From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^
- Humour: Guess the joke contest
The Signpost: 10 January 2024
[edit]- From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
- Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
- Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
- News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
- WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
- Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
- Comix: Conflict resolution
The Signpost: 31 January 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
The Signpost: 13 February 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
- Comix: Strongly
The Signpost: 2 March 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
[edit]- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
[edit]- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics, and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
The Signpost: 16 May 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
- Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
- Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24
- Comix: Generations
- Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
The Signpost: 8 June 2024
[edit]- Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade
- Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor
- In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say
- News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024
- Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth
- Featured content: We didn't start the wiki
- Essay: No queerphobia
- Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!
- Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer
- Comix: The Wikipediholic Family
- Concept: Palimpsestuous
The Signpost: 4 July 2024
[edit]- News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates
- Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board
- In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators
- Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
- In the media: War and information in war and politics
- Sister projects: On editing Wikisource
- Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion
- Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos
- Humour: A joke
- Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps
- Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
[edit]- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
[edit]- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
The Signpost: 4 September 2024
[edit]- News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked
- In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?
- News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election
- Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024
- Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year
- Traffic report: After the gold rush
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
[edit]- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
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
Fictional planets
[edit]Hi! I noticed that you brought a number of articles about fictional planets to WP:AfD last month. There is a list of such articles (it is at least intended to be a list of all fictional planets with standalone articles) at Extrasolar planets in fiction#List, in case you are interested in looking at the rest and determining which ones you might want to take to AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for raising this. By the way, I appreciate your work at Mesklin, and I regret raising that article for AFD. Based on your experience both removing and improving articles, I would would throw the list back at you and ask your opinion. I will try my best to rank them from "most likely to take to AFD" to "least likely."
- Darkover and Tralfamadore: These articles lack sufficient sourcing, and I doubt they have it.
- Mogo and Apokolips: Previously nominated for AFD by User:Piotrus, they did not reach a consensus for deletion, with suggestions for potential merging.
- Riverworld: This article is poorly sourced, but I would check for sources first.
- Gallifrey and Skaro: Both are primarily based on biased or affiliated sources, including the primary source itself. Independent sourcing for Doctor Who articles can be a roll of the dice.
- Gor: This is a series incorrectly labeled/scoped as a planet. Some AFD discussions have resulted in changes to the article’s scope or title.
- Alderaan and Coruscant: These articles are not well-sourced and have limited prominence in Star Wars. But they may still be notable.
- Jakku and Naboo: Also poorly sourced, but I have slightly more confidence in their notability due to their significant presence in the Star Wars movies.
- Ego the Living Planet: This article requires cleanup but likely does not need AFD.
- Discworld (world): While in poor condition, my impression is that this is notable.
- Abeir-Toril, Mystara, and World of A Song of Ice and Fire: Are these really "planet" articles, in the encyclopedic sense of how they are categorized? They primarily cover fantasy settings rather than celestial bodies.
- The others are likely notable. I would consider the AFD process for the first 3 to 6 articles I listed. The middle entries are more likely as candidates for a merge or cleanup, with the bottom of the list leaning towards sourcing and smaller fixes. Did you think that any of the planet articles need attention? Jontesta (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into it particularly closely, but I do have some quick thoughts about some of the articles. I tried to find sources for Tralfamadore some time ago and didn't find much, so it wouldn't surprise me if sufficient sourcing does not exist. For the Star Wars planets, my intuition is that Coruscant and Naboo are fairly likely to have sufficient sources whereas Jakku and Alderaan seem less likely to have that. I would be very surprised if Discworld (world) could not be properly sourced. TompaDompa (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am certainly interested in this. Quick thoughts for now:
- Riverworld should be rewritten to be an article about the series (which is notable, and covered in that article), not about a book. This is a common failing of quite a few articles, some of which we saved by rewriting them in the past.
- Discworld is an interesting case. The series is very notable, but is the world/universe? I'd expect that we would find it to be notable, but the article is not great right now. And yes, rename to 'universe', as suggested on talk.
- Abeir-Toril etc. Good point - at what point we differentiate between a setting and a planet? There are many settings which are notable and set on a planet, sometimes not even named (World of a Song...). Think for example The Witcher universe (ok, bad example, this somewhat surprisingly don't have a dedicated en wiki article; pl:Świat wiedźmina is pretty weak). All such articles need to be scrutinized, because they may be about non-notable entities and/or about a notable book series or franchises, improperly structured as plot summary fancruft about a given -verse.
- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the honest input. Starting with the articles with the clearest status, I nominated Tralfamadore for deletion based on a WP:BEFORE search.
- I also fixed some of the clear instances of "keep" at the bottom of the list. I fixed some of the fantasy settings that are not really planets and added a short clarification at Category:Fictional planets. We would hope to find at least one source that refers to a place as a planet (instead of a kingdom or country). And if the fiction doesn't really treat it as a celestial body, then it belongs in the section of the encyclopedia with other Category:Fantasy worlds or Category:Fictional universes.
- The rest of the articles in the middle will need more time and review. But if any of you get to it before I do, I will try to be of help. Jontesta (talk) 16:26, 23 October 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?
The Signpost: 18 November 2024
[edit]ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]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 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 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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)