If you need assistance relating to a particular article, please try to provide a link to the article so I can see what the problem is in regard to. If your question relates to an article that has been deleted, please provide an appropriate red linklike this one (the exact title of the former article surrounded by [[double brackets]]) to the former article.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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.
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
… and I wouldn’t know if they are a man or woman, but all of that they wrote is false information. The subject that I started on Talk:Wikipedia is titled “About Wikipedia”! And yet GSK likes to argue about “an edit that I have made” in defense. However,since I haven’t made a bad edit that involves anything like “swearing”, “bad name calling” in the talk page OR since I haven’t edited the Wikipedia “Article” page that goes against its purpose (such as adding everything related to “Wikipedia” followed by “Reliable Sources”), the truth is …
I don’t have to drop his/her Non-Sense of replies sent directly towards me. There is no appropriate reason for them to stupidly open a discussion on me at WP:ANI, because I am actually there (in the “Wikipedia” article talk page to contribute to the encyclopedia in a meaningful way and I wasn’t treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I was not picking fights with people and I wasn’t asking them to share my point of view, even when they were mentioning to me “this is not the place for a general discussion of the article’s subject”. I am not really ignoring the advice that they were giving me, to bring Wikipedia ideas to the correct venue, and my good behavior is not tolerating Wikipedia. I’m already doing good enough.
Therefore, if you could talk to GSK about their silly behavior, that would be nice. And if they think that I was ignoring a Wikipedia Guideline, then you can return to me in your talk page here, and I will talk further to you about it! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Craig Lungren: It appears that what rubbed GSK the wrong way was this edit. You had made a comment which had originally said, "Thanks GSK for reminding me of that, but I am stating a point that there should be a 3RD TAB mainly for Discussion of the Wikipedia Article itself! 🙂" Another user, Meters, responded to that comment. Then you changed your comment to say, "Thanks GSK for reminding me of that, and I understand that this current page is for exactly what you said, but I am stating a point that there should be a 3RD PAGE mainly for Discussion of the Wikipedia Article itself! 🙂" And Meters and GSK both had a problem with your editing your comment, which appears to have derailed your proposal about adding a second talk page to each article for discussion of the subject rather than the article.
To give you an illustration of why one should not edit their comment after someone has responded to it, suppose the discussion started out looking like this:
I am voting for candidate Mary Jones in the upcoming election. -- User #1, 09:00
Me too. -- User #2, 09:10
And then User #1 edits their original comment so it says:
I am voting for candidate John Smith in the upcoming election. -- User #1, 09:00
Me too. -- User #2, 09:10
You can see why that would not be acceptable, since it makes User #2 look like they are agreeing to something that they didn't agree to. Even though your edit was not as drastic as that, it still was not advisable to edit your comment that someone had already responded to.
Well, the way I edited it, does not make it inappropriate, but rather it could be going against Wikipedia rules, and could be called “Violating” rather than “inappropriate”. Even they should have said “Just look at the link” without including the “and drop this.” portion at the end of their sentence.Craig Lungren (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if they were giving me advice for the topic that I started, to bring it to the correct venue (according to Wikipedia Community norms), then all they should have said was “As this is not the right place for that discussion, try WP:VILLAGEPUMP.”
In their 2nd comment, they should have said “Please read WP:TALK#REVISE.” without including the extra sentence “It is not appropriate to modify your post after it has been replied to.”
Editing my own comments/posts is obviously normal anywhere on social media. Therefore it is not inappropriate. If I was editing someone else’s posts on Wikipedia rather than my own, then only that would be inappropriate (whether it be on Wikipedia or anywhere else on social media).
Their 2nd sentence could have been “That is because your latest edit goes against Wikipedia’s Guidelines and thus it violates the Community’s Standards, when you modify your own post after it has been replied to”. I mean that would make better sense to me, than calling my edit “Inappropriate”. Only then, it would have not become an argument.
Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with me, since you asked for my opinion as an administrator, and I gave it. I recommend that you let this go (per Wikipedia:Let it go). --Metropolitan90(talk)00:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing is when I looked at “Mute features” it said “Mute features are unavailable, because you haven't confirmed your email address”.
I would like to know: How do I confirm my email address, when I’m already logged in to Wikipedia? (I really mean that the 2 things towards logging in to my username, includes entering my “email address” and “password”. So I don’t know how else to confirm it).
Thanks for your instructions, and the outcome of it worked.
Anyway, I will say: I like your opinion and everything that is spoken in your first 2 comments to me! That was good, especially the 2nd one with the advice “Let it go”! They were the best messages I have seen! 👍 But as for My Opinion, I would like to inform you that …
Any person that is an administrator, would actually not just give their opinion on an issue having to do with multiple users and be done with it in a short span like that, but they would also be the ones to chat with in big conversations and actually help with solving whatever problem/issue the main user is facing.
An administrator giving me just 1 opinion of theirs on whatever it is, that I have to put up with annd encounter in front of other users, will not be good enough for me. Really I would rather want administrators (like you) to give as many opinions of theirs (like your own) than just 1, whenever I am aiming to go through everything that I can in front of them (or you), concerning the main issue I’m facing.
An administrator would have more editing options available on Wikipedia versus all of the main/customer editors that would have available for them under their account (such as “lock” for article pages and choosing “Only Semi-Pro Editors” who can edit those specific “Article” pages.
Are you one of those Wikipedia Administrators who I can count on for help and is really being able to discuss about any problem I encounter, for as long as it’s needed (especially when it is the other users who chose to start a fight in front of me, and has made me believe that they are the ones with inappropriate behavior and bad communication)? 🤔
As to your item #3 above, administrators already do have certain options not available to regular editors, including being able to protect a page (see Wikipedia:Protection policy). (We don't have anything called "semi-pro editors"; rather, there is such a thing as semi-protection which prohibits unregistered and very new editors from editing a page.) In regard to items #1, #2, and #4, I will say that no particular administrator is required to get involved in any particular dispute, nor, generally speaking, are they required to keep assisting once they have started to do so. I don't understand what you mean by giving "just 1 opinion", but I assume you mean you were looking for opinions as to each of the different issues you were facing (which I have already provided), as opposed to the same person providing two or more opinions on the same issue. To be honest, I am not convinced that other users have chosen to start a fight in front of you. If you are still concerned about the fact that User:Meterssaid that it was "not appropriate" to edit your comment after someone else had responded to it, I'm not going to be able to help you any more than I already have. --Metropolitan90(talk)20:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have at least given you my opinion now, and this was the first time that I have encountered an issue with multiple users.
All I can think of now is: Do you know of anyone else on Wikipedia who would actually try to help sort out the different issues, when I feel like they are needed?
You don't need to look for a specific person in advance for this. Depending on the type of issue you are having, there are various message boards where you can get help. In your case, I would recommend asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse where people can point you in the right direction. But you don't need to ask there now; wait until a new problem actually arises, if it ever does. --Metropolitan90(talk)22:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I love you a lot Metropolitan90.
It may not be till another 6 months or later now, until I actually return to you again! 👍
Just Remember: Every advice given to me IS only what I will accept (without any editor telling me things like [what I have mentioned to you in my 3rd to 4th comments above])! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
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.
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
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.
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Please read MOS:LEADCITE again where it says citations are not required or prohibited in the lead section. At Wikipedia:Featured article review its generally frowned upon to have any redundant citation in the lead, and it is my habit to follow WP:FA practice in the lead section which is not to use any citations unless it is content that this controversial or not cited in the body of the article. If you look at the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2024, you will see the majority of the FA class articles have zero citations in the lead. Those that do, are usually doing so after a quote or a controversial claim. WP:DYKCRIT has never required citations in the lead, and my articles typically do not have them. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
