Jump to content

User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

listas

Hi, thanks for adding the |listas= parameter. Just a note that it is now preferable to add this parameter to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template rather than individual project banners. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I had wondered about that. Thank you for letting me know. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

BNN Breaking

FYI, there was a very damning article about BNN Breaking in the New York Times today ("It Looked Like a Reliable News Site. It Was an A.I. Chop Shop"). From the article: "(Mr. Chahal) used his news service to exercise grudges, publishing slanted stories about a politician from San Francisco he disliked, Wikipedia after it published a negative entry about BNN Breaking and Elon Musk after accounts belonging to Mr. Chahal, his wife and his companies were suspended on X." BNN Breaking is no more. Chisme (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I can't say I'm particularly surprised by any of that. I wonder what his next move will be. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hello @Lepricavark, I would like to request your opinion at Chairperson#Requested move 16 June 2024. PadFoot2008 04:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ORDER

Thank you for added dating tags but please read MOS:ORDER before doing any more. The short description always goes before that dating tag. Please go back and fix those. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it make any difference which comes first? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The MOS thinks so. And I agree Masterhatch (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Surely you can provide an actual answer. I'm willing to make the switch for the time being, but I need an actual reason. This is not something that affects the reader in any way. If you're going to ask me to make my own job more difficult, then I'd appreciate a little courtesy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ORDER is important so we don't get stupid stuff like stub tags and categories put at the top and short descriptions put at the bottom. Masterhatch (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't put stub tags or categories at the top, nor do I put short descriptions at the bottom. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say you did. I was giving an example of why MOS:ORDER is important. And, really, is it that hard to put it below the SD? Masterhatch (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It adds an extra step to every edit, which I find especially annoying given that you still haven't taken the step of substantively answering my original question. I didn't ask why the MOS is so important; I asked whether it makes any actually difference whether the template comes before or after the SD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been discussed at length here and here. If you don't think its important enough to take one extra step then i suggest you start up a new discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Masterhatch (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for linking those discussions, although I doubt they can answer my question of whether it actually makes any difference. In fact, it makes essentially no difference whether the dates template comes before the SD. It will not affect readers in any way, nor will it affect anything else. I am not interested in talking with other editors who share the inflexible commitment to the MOS that you've displayed here, so I will not be starting any new discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, and I apologize for the surliness of my original replies. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It's all good. Masterhatch (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please also do not blindly mass-add MDY tags to articles, otherwise you end up with nonsense like this. You appear to be making one edit every 4/5 seconds on average, are you checking properly before you save? GiantSnowman 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I've implemented a workaround to skip pages with the DMY tag, and I will be more careful in the future. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to add to this. I'd got this list of DMY & MDY conflicts down to just 17 articles. It's now 68. Can you fix the ones you've added please. - X201 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I've begun working on those. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - X201 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
No problem. I think my accidental additions to that list are all resolved now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you kindly! LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

EEng ANI thread

I certainly did not intend my complaint to be a "character assassination". I tried to be fair and point out EEng has made helpful edits, and tried to think of ways they could continue to do so. Usually the fact that someone has broken a rule many times results in a different outcome compared to someone who has broken a rule only once, when other people try to stop the bad behavior. This case was not an acute problem so much as a chronic problem that has recently flared up again, and I don't see how it is possible to explain that it is a chronic problem without giving at least an overview of its history. -- Beland (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment by EEng that prompted you to file that thread was mildly terse, and I doubt if you would have it given a second thought had it come from anyone else. From my viewpoint, you seized upon a small edit that wasn't really an issue and used it as a springboard to try to start a discussion about EEng's long-term conduct. The community already had one of those discussions very recently, and I chose not to participate in part because I didn't want to be subjected to insinuations against my character from editors who think they have the moral high ground. As you can see from the recent comments on your own talk page, the hypocrisy can be staggering. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I think going out of one's way to be disrespectful to other editors simply because they are following Wikipedia policies like WP:BURDEN is a problem. I don't think I would have filed this complaint if I hadn't noticed EEng's "hold your breath until you turn blue" comment (followed by swearing and an extended flying-off-the-handle rant against another editor), which justifies a response no matter who the editor was. That comment was made in June, which is too long ago to be actionable now by itself. While investigating the appropriate response, I noted that EEng had already been blocked by more recent comments. I decided to watch their contributions after they came back to see if serving their longest block so far had changed their behavior at all. The answer appears to be "no", which is information the previous AN/I discussion didn't have.
I'm sorry you felt like you couldn't participate in that discussion; that sounds like an example of the sort of alienating toxicity I'm trying to reduce. Certainly if other people have legitimate reasons to call me uncivil, that's something I'd want to change about myself. I'm certainly annoyingly persistent and often blunt, and I remember editors accusing me of being biased (which is par for the course in any polarized debate these days, justified or not)...but never uncivil. Is there a specific message or message on my user talk page you're thinking of? The only two people to write there about the EEng thread were to thank me for filing the complaint and apologizing for the responses I got from other editors. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you were swiftly attacked and insulted at ANI by the usual cabal that shows up there whenever a thread about EEng opens.
  • Thank you for trying to make the community better instead of being an enabler. The same clique always rush to defend each other whenever incivility is reported.
Those remarks are uncivil. Those two editors ran to your talk page to vent their anger against 'the usual cabal/enablers', and they were clever enough to say nice things to you so that wouldn't notice they were using your talk page as a forum to take cheap shots at other people. The difference between you and them is that you showed me the courtesy of coming to my talk page for a conversation. The aggressive civility enforcers generally don't talk to editors like me; they talk about us behind our backs. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. -- Beland (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Louie Meadows

hey Lep. can you please take a look at the Louie Meadows page. You reverted some edits at the beginning of the month.but either someone is vandalizing the page or trying to highjack the page. Thank you CannisRoofus (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It was actually someone else who did the reverts earlier this month, but thank you for bringing that to my attention. I've reverted and will put the page on my watchlist. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
  • The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

Dennis Kangogo 2C0F:FE38:2192:D2B8:1:0:1771:F374 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what this message is about. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

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.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 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 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,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

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.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:Julia Waters Tillman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Julia Waters Tillman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lepricavark/Archive_10&oldid=1256408853"