User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 62

← Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63 →

Disambiguation pages in a list article

Hi ST! Thanks for the note; I'm still trying to get my head around the Melanie Bernier hndis syntax, which is new to me. It seems very clever but for small dab groups not a patch on a designated main article with a hatnote or two, which has several advantages, not the least being its intuitivity (?!) for less clever editors such as Doug butler (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has moved now to the development of a new template {{Transclude list|Melanie Bernier}} which is more intuitive. Your input to the discussion would be valued. SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mixing indentation types

Hi SilkTork, I've just fixed some comments on the Template:Talk header RfC. It looks like you've replied to bullet-pointed comments, but mixed the indentation type like this:

* Comment
:: Reply

Please don't do this — it's discouraged by the accessibility MoS because it causes semantically incorrect HTML, leading to incorrect output on screen readers. Instead, please use the following syntax:

* Comment
*: Reply

This still won't output a bullet point in your comment, but it will correctly identify it as a reply (sub-list) of the previous comment. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, I understand that you are trying to tell me something, but can you explain a bit further User:Tol as you are not being clear. What is "semantically incorrect HTML"? I assume you are a tech person. However, I'm not a tech person. Please don't assume that everyone has the same interests. Avoid jargon where possible. Now, in clear English if you can, avoiding phrases like "semantically incorrect HTML", explain to me when I can use "::" and when I should use "*:" instead. SilkTork (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did the same thing, and without having to know a phrase, I understand that it's bad for people who rely on screenreaders, whom to serve I'm willing. The essay explaining (which comes with a clear nutshell) can be found on top of User talk:Drmies, in case helping the blind is not good enough for a reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"in case helping the blind is not good enough for a reason". Gerda, being clear in communication for everyone, be they blind, dyslexic, autistic, using English as a secondary language, of low education and/or IQ, is important. We would strive to be clear for everyone, not just for a selection. We should never be dismissive of the notion of using understandable language. SilkTork (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, that's too high for me. - I try to keep it simple. You can use "::" when replying to a single colon, ":". When replying to a single asterisk, repeat that asterisk, followed by your choice. Generally: copy exactly to what you reply, and then add your one additional thingy. Otherwise, a screenreader gets confused. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Gerda Arendt summarised this better than I did. Another is from Help:Talk pages#Indentation, which states: "Use the same indentation and list formatting as what you are replying to, plus one level at the end of the indent/list code. E.g., if you are replying to something in a complicated discussion that starts with #:::*, just copy-paste that and add a :, resulting in #:::*: in front of your reply (or use #:::** if you feel it is necessary for your reply to begin with a bullet point)." Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

vacation greetings from Munich, rich in culture, culinary events and meeting dear people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

We appear to be miscommunicating Gerda. My note to Tol, to which they have responded at length (not yet read it Tol, but I will do), is about the clarity of their communication. Your comment to me that "in case helping the blind is not good enough for a reason" appears to be taking a slant on this which was not my intention. To be absolutely clear, I am not objecting to assisting anyone. I guess my response to you was perhaps a bit cryptic, but I wished to point out that clarity of communication is important for everyone, and there is something of an irony in which one person is saying "your communication is not helpful for some people", and doing so via a communication which is hard to follow for some people. I have glaucoma. I have had laser treatment, but still need to use eye drops (Cosopt and Monopost), which can sometimes make my vision blurry, so I occasionally use a screen reader - the Chrome extension screen reader. I have found NVDA to be a bit problematic when reading Wikipedia as it stops at wiki-links and wiki mark-up. Curiously my Chrome extension can sometimes pause or get stuck at what might be hidden asterisks, though is usually OK with what might be multiple colons (I've not really studied it closely). I've yet to look into Tol's comments or the link provided, though I have occasionally found that advice regarding changing mark up to suit screen readers does not apply to all (or even most screen readers) but can result from a selective experience with a particular screen reader. We can sometimes adjust our mark-up to suit one screen reader, only to find that it causes problems with another. But, as I say, I have not yet looked into the issue that Tol has brought up, and am completely open minded about that. My responses here so far are entirely to do with the clarity of Tol's communication to me, which I assume they are templating to other users. Hopefully out of this moment will come an improved means for Tol to communicate this issue to other users. SilkTork (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand. The essay by RexxS - especially the nutshell - helped me to indent accordingly (which I didn't previosly). I miss him very much. Did you see my question to the arb cands? Sorry if I got too emotional here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've not looked at any of the arb candidates questions. It's not something I am following. I have voted, pretty randomly and instinctively, based on what I know (or don't know) about the candidates.

When I have more time I will look into the indentation issue with regard to screen readers. What I normally do is simply copy and paste the preceding indentation, and then add a colon (or asterisk) to indent further. In my (admittedly very limited) experience with screen readers, problems/differences interpreting punctuation is mainly a screen reader issue rather than a website issue. That's not to say that I am closed to this issue, merely to say that I am not assuming Tol's advice is correct until I have looked into it. I tend to be cautious, and will check what people tell me before acting on suggestions. SilkTork (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Indenting: If you copy and then add yours, you do exactly what I said, and Tol said, so I fail to see the problem. - I asked the candidates if they had listened to SlimVirgin - which the current ones didn't. I only asked "listened", not "followed". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, SilkTork. I'll start with an explanation of when to use what indent: the basic principle is to copy the previous indentation level and then add an indent. This means that if the comment you are replying to starts with a *, then on your reply, you should copy that * and then add an indentation of your choice. If you want another bullet point, then use **; if you want a regular indent, then use *:. If the comment you are replying to starts with a :, then copy that and add indentation of your choice: :* for a bullet point or :: for a regular indent. If the comment you are replying to starts with :*::, then copy that and add an indent of your choice: :*::* (bullet) or :*::: (regular indent).

Now, on to the technical details. This is going to be more confusing, and you don't need to read this to understand how to indent your replies. Webpages are made of HTML (HyperText Markup Language). It's sort-of like wikitext, in that it uses markup to format text. For example, in wikitext, you would write ''text'' to get text — the '' italicises the text. In HTML, the way to do this would be <i>text</i> — the <i> tells your web browser to start italicising the text and the </i> tells it to end italicisation. However, HTML does not only contain instructions on how to format the text. It also contains information about the meaning of different parts of the webpage, which you might not see. For example, the HTML markup <em>text</em> means that "text" should be emphasised ("em" for "emphasis"). When a web browser is processing this, it will probably interpret this and put "text" in italics, just like with <i>text</i>. The difference is that <em>text</em> has additional "semantic" information — information about the content that isn't necessarily displayed on the screen. A screen reader, which reads text of a webpage for blind people, would probably treat these two pieces of HTML differently, by emphasising <em>text</em> while reading it.

Now, how does this apply to indentation on Wikipedia? Well, it's a little hard to explain, but I'll show you how MediaWiki (the software that Wikipedia runs on) interprets correct and incorrect indentation.

In my example of correct indentation above (the second one), MediaWiki turns this into an HTML list with one list item, containing "Comment". In that list item, after "Comment", there is another list, with one list item, containing "Reply". This is a sub-list of that list item, and is easier to visualise if only bullets are used. This is a list:

• This is the first comment (first list item) of that list. Now, this is another list inside this list item:
  • This is a reply to (item in a sublist of) the first comment,
  • and this is another item in a sublist of the first comment.
• This is another comment (list item) in the main list.

Those two replies are in a sub-list of the first comment, which is why they are indented.

Now, if you use incorrect syntax, MediaWiki understands it differently. It generates a list of one item with "Comment". However, because you mixed indentation types, the "Reply" isn't a sub-list of "Comment". Rather, it's a different list. For the reply, it generates a new list with one item, which contains no text of its own, but contains a sub-list with one item — "Reply". It's a sub-list, so the indentation level is correct, and it appears correct, but when a screen reader is reading this, it will interpret it as two lists rather than one list with a sub-list in one item.

I hope this makes sense. Even if you don't understand the technical details, the first paragraph should explain all you need to know about how to indent replies. Sincerely, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Tol - I've not read through everything, but I note that your advice is to do what I tend to do anyway (perhaps not all the time, but is generally what I do), which is to copy the preceding indentation, and then add a colon or asterisk. The edit of mine you highlighted and corrected is this [1], which - as you see, simply follows the preceding indentation. In your edit you amend the comment preceding mine so necessitating that you alter my edit: [2]. I have no doubt made mistakes of the type that you indicate, though - ironically - not in the instance that you have selected. It seems that you were doing a search for mixed indentation, found one, and then without looking too closely into it, sent me your message instead of GA-RT-22, who was the user before me. Oh. Actually, looking at it. I made the first statement without any indentation, GA-RT-22 responded to my statement with a colon indent, and I replied with a double colon indent. Not sure where either of us went wrong there. Gosh, this is confusing isn't it? What exactly did I do wrong? SilkTork (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the wrong comment — I was thinking of this edit of yours in the same discussion, in which you reply to a * with a ::. If you already know to copy the previous indentation, then that's great! I just saw this edit and thought I should leave you a note. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that I've been dragged in... In this particular case, we have one of those "support/oppose" polls going on. SilkTork wanted to reply to a vote, so increased the indent level by one, and left off the bullet, as it wasn't a vote. A perfectly reasonable thing to do. Sadly it does break the html syntax, something you wouldn't know unless you had some knowledge of how the markup and html work (or had read and remember the talk page help). I think the best solution here would be to fix the markup parser (or whatever thing is responsible) so that it implements the editor's intent without breaking the html. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Tol, there are a number of edits in your diff: fixed. You adjusted the markup of 10 users in that edit, but I am the only one you contacted about this. I assumed you were letting everyone know, but you selected just me. I'm following what the others are doing. That's kind of how we do things here, and how we learn. If this issue with markup is so widespread that in one small discussion ten users (the majority) are not following a certain method, then telling just one of the ten is not the most effective way to change things. Perhaps what you need is to either start a site wide RfC, or get the developers involved in this. I don't have the time to assist you in that, but Gerda has a lot of energy and talent, and this seems to be an area of interest. Gerda, would you be able to advise Tol on how to get a wider discussion going regarding this matter? SilkTork (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

December songs

December songs

New day today, an Italian opera, my second ever, as the TFA written by two dear people, and a park where I went with dear people, as pictured DYK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

... and today is Beethoven's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Manor of Powderham

You merged this article with Powderham Castle but you didn't move much content probably because you felt that not much belongs in Wikipedia. In some cases like Loxhore/Manor of Loxhore the manor has a separate article but in this case there is no separate article at Powderham however although its on User:Crouch, Swale/Settlement parishes I noted that the because the manor article exists that kind of covers the village/parish its not a priority however because of you merging the manor article we don't cover it at all. Can I suggest restoring the article and if you don't think a separate article should exist for the manor then the manor article can just be moved to Powderham. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Crouch. The relevant contents of Manor of Powderham is: "Powderham is a former manor on the coast of south Devon, England, situated within the historic hundred of Exminster, about 6 miles (9.7 km) south of the city of Exeter and adjacent to the north-east of the village of Kenton. It consists in part of flat, formerly marshy ground on the west bank of the River Exe estuary where it is joined by its tributary the River Kenn, the site of Powderham Castle, originally the fortified manor house of Powderham. On the opposite side of the Exe is the small village of Lympstone and almost opposite is Nutwell Court in the parish of Woodbury, formerly the castle or fortified manor house of the powerful mediaeval Dynham family." I do believe all that information is contained in Powderham Castle. The information I did not move was the genealogical information on the Courtenay family as the relevant information on the family as it relates to Powderham Castle and the related manor is in Powderham Castle. Here is an example of the material I did not move:

====William Courtenay, 1st Viscount Courtenay (1710–1762)==== [[William Courtenay, 1st Viscount Courtenay]] (1710–1762) (son), ''de jure'' 7th [[Earl of Devon]] ====William Courtenay, 2nd Viscount Courtenay (1742–1788) ==== [[William Courtenay, 2nd Viscount Courtenay]] (1742–1788) (son) ''de jure'' 8th [[Earl of Devon]] ====William Courtenay, 9th Earl of Devon (1768–1835)==== [[William Courtenay, 9th Earl of Devon]] & 3rd Viscount Courtenay (1768–1835) (son) In 1831 he successfully established his right to the Earldom of Devon created in 1553, thus retrospectively making his ancestors Earls of Devon ''de jure''. He died unmarried, when the viscountcy became extinct,<ref>Debrett's Peerage, 1968, p.354</ref> but not the earldom or baronetcy. Henceforth the descent of Powderham follows that of the Earldom of Devon. ====William Courtenay, 10th Earl of Devon (1777–1859)==== [[William Courtenay, 10th Earl of Devon]] (1777–1859) (second cousin) ====William Courtenay, 11th Earl of Devon (1807–1888)==== [[William Courtenay, 11th Earl of Devon|William Reginald Courtenay, 11th Earl of Devon]] (1807–1888) (son) ====Edward Courtenay, 12th Earl of Devon (1836–1891)==== [[Edward Courtenay, 12th Earl of Devon|Edward Baldwin Courtenay, 12th Earl of Devon]] (1836–1891) (son) Died unmarried ====Henry Courtenay, 13th Earl of Devon (1811–1904)==== [[Henry Courtenay, 13th Earl of Devon|Henry Hugh Courtenay, 13th Earl of Devon]] (1811–1904) ( uncle) Rector of Powderham. Married Anna Maria Leslie, daughter of Henrietta Countess of Rothes. ====Charles Courtenay, 14th Earl of Devon (1870–1927) ==== [[Charles Courtenay, 14th Earl of Devon|Charles Pepys Courtenay, 14th Earl of Devon]] (1870–1927) (grandson) Son of Henry Reginald, Lord Courtenay (d.1898), a barrister and JP, [[Poor Law]] inspector for the Western District, who predeceased his own father, by his wife Lady Evelyn Pepys, daughter of [[Charles Pepys, 1st Earl of Cottenham|Charles Christopher Pepys, 1st Earl of Cottenham]] (1781–1851). Died unmarried. ====Henry Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon (1872–1935)==== [[Henry Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon|Henry Hugh Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon]] (1872–1935) (brother) Rector of Powderham. Died unmarried. ====Frederick Courtenay, 16th Earl of Devon (1875–1935)==== [[Frederick Courtenay, 16th Earl of Devon|Frederick Leslie Courtenay, 16th Earl of Devon]] (1875–1935) (brother) Rector and Mayor of [[Honiton]]. Married Marguerite Silva, daughter of John Silva of [[Itchen Abbas]], Hampshire. ====Charles Courtenay, 17th Earl of Devon (1916–1998)==== [[Charles Courtenay, 17th Earl of Devon|Charles Christopher Courtenay, 17th Earl of Devon]] (1916–1998) (son) ====Hugh Courtenay, 18th Earl of Devon (1942–2015)==== [[Hugh Courtenay, 18th Earl of Devon|Hugh Rupert Courtenay, 18th Earl of Devon]] (1942-2015) (son). ====Charles Courtenay, 19th Earl of Devon (b. 1975)==== [[Charles Courtenay, 19th Earl of Devon]] (b. 1975). The Earl is a practising [[lawyer|attorney]] and is married to the American actress [[A. J. Langer|Alison Joy Langer]]. His heir apparent is his only son Jack Haydon Langer Courtenay, Lord Courtenay (b. 2009).

If you feel any of that information is worth saving, then House of Courtenay is the place for it, and some sources would be useful. SilkTork (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean, all of the information is otherwise in the castle article. For the content you agree is relevant shouldn't that be kept or moved to Powderham, yes I could create a new article through AFC for the village/CP but rather than bothering to do that it might just be better to keep the manor content and use that for "Powderham"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that there is a village of Powderham. There is a church (St Clements or Powderham Church), one house and a yacht club, and that is it. There was a village of Powderham, but it doesn't exist any more. Anything that could be said about the village could and should be said in Powderham Castle. The castle holds the notability, and a Google search for "Powderham village" will take you to the castle. Mentions in books of Powderham village will also be about the castle and sometimes also the church - example: [3]. If you wish to add something to Powderham Castle about the church and/or the village, please do so. I can't see a standalone article being justified, though if you feel there is sufficient material please create one first in your sandbox and let me have a look at it before you submit it to AfC. SilkTork (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There is still a small settlement north of the castle and west of the church. The CP (which is far larger) would also be covered in the article (as is normal) and doesn't belong in the castle article. As you probably know though its normal to have settlement and parish in 1 combined article but they aren't normally covered in buildings. But as said the previous manor article could cover this until someone creates an article at "Powderham". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, there are a handful of houses at the entrance to the castle grounds. However, I am still not seeing the viability of creating a standalone article when that information could be contained in Powderham Castle. Either put whatever information you feel is significant in regards to the village in Powderham Castle, or create something in your user space, and I'll take a look at it. The difficulty here for notability is that references to Powderham seem to refer to the castle and related areas (including the village), and it is difficult to establish notability of just the village. A search for Powderham on the website of the relevant authority teignbridge.gov.uk returns the castle, the park and notes on the parish council, but not the village. SilkTork (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it for now and see what happens with my editing restrictions in the new year but yes even though there may be little to say about the village separate from the castle the parish is quite distinct at least. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Horticulturists and gardeners has been nominated for renaming

Category:Horticulturists and gardeners has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi SilkTork/Archive2! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed my name. And ask that User:Sdkb pause this idea until they have had confirmation from each person nominated that they wish to be involved in this. I understand the spirit in which this is intended. However, not all of us are supportive of the WMF. And not all of us would be supportive of donations being spent on giving away merchandise in this way. If anyone wishes to thank me for something I have done, then a personal message or a barnstar is always appreciated. I would always much prefer the thanks of a fellow Wikipedian over a piece of merchandise from the Foundation. SilkTork (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied here. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, SilkTork, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 10:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

- Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from Blaze Wolf

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Blaze Wolf's talk page.
Message added 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Groundhogs

I'm a bit unsure about you're reason for moving from The Groundhogs with you're link to page views. The views show Groundhog has 19,324 views while only 2,033 for The Groundhogs and 253 for Groundhogs[[4]]. The animal probably has more long-term significance and per WP:THE the term has a meaning without "The" namely the animal and per WP:PLURALPT a plural normally redirects to its singular. Can I suggest moving it back to The Groundhogs or to Groundhogs (band) and start a RM if you think the band is primary, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I did consider WP:PLURALPT, and the comment that "Sometimes, however, a plural form will establish a separate primary topic. Windows does not go to Window, but rather to Microsoft Windows". By considering the page views, it was clear that Groundhog was primary for the singular, but that there were few page views for the plural term, while the band got ten times as many views, and the band's name is Groundhogs, not The Groundhogs. I looked at links in from the plural, and found that some were for the animal and some were for the band, and so links for the band had for some years been going to the wrong place. I fixed those links that were for the animal. I did consider going for Groundhogs (band), but was swayed by the small number of page hits for groundhogs. However, as you have raised a concern I will initiate a discussion on the title. SilkTork (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OK I see you're link was to [[5]] which used views for the article on the band v the redirect to the animal. Redirects tend not to get many views as Google tends not to land readers there and they tend to have less links than articles etc. If you look at the views for the article Groundhog its a different story[[6]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That pageviews graph is one of the reasons why I felt that it was appropriate to move The Groundhogs to groundhogs, as there were so few people using Groundhogs, and there was little information to say which article they wanted - The Groundhogs or Groundhog. Looking at the way it is now developing (with page views creeping up to the prior level of The Groundhogs), it may well be that most of those typing in "groundhogs" are in fact looking for the band. Anyway, you make a valid point, so I have opened a discussion to get some wider discussion and some consensus. SilkTork (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

hat

(nice pun by the way : )

and no worries here. I would have liked to have heard WTT's (and others') follow-up thoughts, but I respect your discernment, so if it was time for "everyone out of the pool", I'll go head to the showers  : ) - jc37 09:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Where?

Hi, Silk Tork - would you be so kind as to point me to the RfC regarding TP header (back in Feb, I believe)? I was not aware of it, and would like to read the input. (please ping when you reply) Atsme 💬 📧 21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That would be on the talkpage of the template. Atsme SilkTork (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar Barnstar

		The Barnstar Barnstar
		Good on you for creating the Job Done award for admins who honorably resign their tools. I think it was a great idea, and you designed it very well. I have no doubt that it will catch on and become a new tradition. Best, ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I do like getting a barnstar! SilkTork (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrator activity policy update

Hello, SilkTork. This message is to let you know about a change to the administrator policy:

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Updates to bureaucrat minimum activity requirements

Hello SilkTork,

Following a discussion at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, the minimum activity requirements for bureaucrats have been updated to also include the the recently updated minimum editing requirements for administrators (i.e. at least 100 edits every 5 years). This will be enforced beginning in January 2023. Should you no longer wish to volunteer as a bureaucrat you may request removal at SRP and.or let us know at WP:BN.

Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This message was sent to all 'crats, but as you opted out of MMS I manually delivered it to you. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)