User talk:Justiyaya/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Justiyaya. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Happy New Year, Justiyaya!
Justiyaya,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
Miscellaneous
- The functionaries email list (functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Question from Paranormal knights of Scotland (17:18, 5 January 2022)
how do i start a wiki for my business --Paranormal knights of Scotland (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Paranormal knights of Scotland welcome to Wikipedia, if you want to use the MediaWiki software for your business, it's probably best to look at this article about installing MediaWiki software or searching for a service that would host mediawiki instances. If you wish to write an English Wikipedia article about your business, I would strongly recommend that you don't, conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged here. Justiyaya 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Question from Lawrence monkhouse (22:10, 6 January 2022)
I am looking at the Chrysler Canada page and see that there are very few plant images. I may be of some help. From 1958 till the mid nineties, I operated the Chrysler Canada photographic department and have numerous images from that era that I would be willing to share. --Lawrence monkhouse (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Lawrence monkhouse: That's awesome! Wikipedia would greatly appreciate any photos you're willing to share! If you don't have a commons.wikimedia.org account you can create one for free and start uploading photos (that you own) with the upload wizard. It's a relatively straightforward process, but if you need any assistance at all, please feel free to reach out to me or Justiyaya for help. ––FormalDude
talk 22:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Question from PIESMATTER (20:19, 17 January 2022)
can I move about to the THERE... I'm very knew to this portion of wiki but have used it for years without realizing I could be of more value. Once I create my account can I move about the various portals under the same username? --PIESMATTER (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi PIESMATTER, welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you need help with, can you please clarify your question? If you are asking about what tasks you can do here, consider checking out the Wikipedia:Task center for a list of tasks, if you are asking about the portal name space, this should provide a good general overview on the topic, if you are asking about the different Wikimedia projects, here is a list of all of them with explanations on what they are used for. Hope this helps :D Justiyaya 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism 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, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Request for advice
Hey, anytime I come across an active edit war while reviewing pending changes, I wonder what's the best course of action: Leave a warning message and revert the edit warring user or simply leave a warning message? WP:EW doesn't seem to be very clear on that, so I want to make sure that I'm doing the right thing. Let me know what you think. Thank you Throast (talk | contribs) 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Throast Great question, I'm a bit confused on that too, but generally speaking if the is edit clear vandalism or something against policy revert it and leave a warning (template/no template based on situation), if 2 editors are both edit warring and none of the exemptions apply and the content of the edit is not against policy it's probably best to warn them both and not revert, accepting might still be fine if covered by guidelines. It's really different every single case... Sorry if this didn't really help much, and thanks for sending me a message. Justiyaya 18:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like a good solution. I've always reverted citing WP:EW until now but it feels wrong since you're in a sense joining the edit war (at least it could be perceived that way). So unless there's a clear policy violation, I'll accept and leave a warning message from now on. Thanks for your input. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would say that generally speaking I've reverted telling people to discuss if they didn't leave an edit summary when reverting a revert that makes sense, and although BRD is "never a reason for reverting", the revert would generally be supported by policies. It's really different every case in terms of reverting too, generally leaving it alone is probably the better choice if you're unsure. I don't think I'm explaining this very well, pinging FormalDude for thoughts maybe? Justiyaya 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- You've got it basically spot on to what I would've said–it's different for each time/case. One exception is it's typically always okay to revert someone who has broken the WP:3RR. In cases where both editors have broken the rule, it's sometimes necessary to request full page protection, warn the editors, and/or report them to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ––FormalDude talk 20:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- On the other hand, it feels unfair to let someone slide who has brute forced their edit to be the most recent. I think the notion that both parties involved in edit warring are always disruptive is not true in many cases. We have one editor who wishes to retain the status quo, which I don't see anything wrong with as long as there's a valid reason, and one editor who disrupts. As long as the disruptive editor doesn't break 3RR, they will have their way if we don't revert, which feels wrong. In my opinion, 1RR should universally replace 3RR but this is obviously not the right place to discuss that... Throast (talk | contribs) 23:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Throast Changing 3RR to 1RR might be a good idea but would make anti vandal work a lot harder if the exceptions aren't changed, perhaps adopting 1RR as a personal policy when having a content dispute is a better option maybe? Justiyaya 03:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- On the other hand, it feels unfair to let someone slide who has brute forced their edit to be the most recent. I think the notion that both parties involved in edit warring are always disruptive is not true in many cases. We have one editor who wishes to retain the status quo, which I don't see anything wrong with as long as there's a valid reason, and one editor who disrupts. As long as the disruptive editor doesn't break 3RR, they will have their way if we don't revert, which feels wrong. In my opinion, 1RR should universally replace 3RR but this is obviously not the right place to discuss that... Throast (talk | contribs) 23:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- You've got it basically spot on to what I would've said–it's different for each time/case. One exception is it's typically always okay to revert someone who has broken the WP:3RR. In cases where both editors have broken the rule, it's sometimes necessary to request full page protection, warn the editors, and/or report them to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ––FormalDude talk 20:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would say that generally speaking I've reverted telling people to discuss if they didn't leave an edit summary when reverting a revert that makes sense, and although BRD is "never a reason for reverting", the revert would generally be supported by policies. It's really different every case in terms of reverting too, generally leaving it alone is probably the better choice if you're unsure. I don't think I'm explaining this very well, pinging FormalDude for thoughts maybe? Justiyaya 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like a good solution. I've always reverted citing WP:EW until now but it feels wrong since you're in a sense joining the edit war (at least it could be perceived that way). So unless there's a clear policy violation, I'll accept and leave a warning message from now on. Thanks for your input. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Question from Usernameisused (13:32, 28 January 2022)
How do I make a page --Usernameisused (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Usernameisused, welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to create an user page, you can click on your username and create one, be sure to follow the user page guidelines. If you want to create an article, see WP:1st, keep in mind that creating an article is one of the hardest things for new editors, so consider choosing another task before attempting it, thanks! Justiyaya 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Usernameisused If the inquiry is regarding your sandbox, I would strongly encourage you move on to another task to work on in Wikipedia, you would be much more useful to the project there, if you have any other questions, feel free to put them below :D Justiyaya 14:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicki Minaj on a "Biographies" 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 01:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 January 2022
- Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment
- News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election
- Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"
- Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?
- WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured
- Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021
- Obituary: Twofingered Typist
- Essay: The prime directive
- In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing
- Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"
- Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword