This is an archive of past discussions about User:Extraordinary Writ. 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.
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I'm writing on behalf of management for Tavi Castro. To our surprise his wikipedia article was deleted. Can we please work towards reinstating his page and updating it. He is involved in Warner brothers new movie Aquaman 2 and the lost chambers and we would like the page to be updated and live as soon as possible for major updates.
Notability is not a problem here, a simple google search or his 16 million followers on social media should more than suffice , thank you very much . Bodyengineerswiki (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Hello Karakdict. Your edit was published successfully, but another user undid it because you copied the tourism board's website word-for-word, which is considered a copyright violation. You're welcome to try adding the content again—just make sure to rewrite the material using your own words. Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding removal of tag
Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hi @Extraordinary Writ sir, hope you are good.
I want to tell you that a few days ago I created a page on which an editor has put COI tag, although I am not directly associated with that topic. Despite this, this tag is placed on that page. We have talked to that editor( CNMall41 ) on his talk page. I gave him answers to his questions but he disagrees with them. Due to my interest in the film world, I like to write about it and like to edit only on the pages related to it.
Please help me to remove this tag. Worldiswide (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Moses Wanjala Jnr, and welcome to Wikipedia! On mobile phones, the edit button looks like a pencil and should be in the upper right-hand corner of each article you want to edit. See the picture to the right. Once you push that button, you'll be able to make whatever changes you think would be helpful, from fixing typos to adding new content. You might want to read this page for more information, and feel free to ask me any other questions you might have. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Extraordinary Writ, you mentioned that "once a PROD has been removed, it cannot be restored." However, the edit summary for the removal is not related to this article.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Owais Al Qarni, if you think the rationale was incorrect, the best thing to do is to start an AfD discussion about it. I suppose A. B. could revert the dePROD if they thought it was a mistake, but that's not very common: all a dePROD means is that someone thinks the article deserves to go through the full deletion process. I suspect A. B. was just saying that a "research magazine" is close enough to a "research journal" that further discussion is warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The article said it was a "research magazine". For that reason, I removed the PROD leaving the edit summary that I did. Just take it to AfD and let others validate your assessment.
ChunkyBubbles, there unfortunately isn't a foolproof way to do this. If you go to the "notifications" tab of Special:Preferences, there's an "edit revert" box you can check, but the system isn't smart enough to recognize all reverts (and it wouldn't have noticed the one you're here about). By the way, if you haven't yet, I'd encourage you to take a look at our policy on writing about living people: it's very important that we write these articles carefully and use only reliable sources. Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Extraordinary Writ,
Thank you for relisting this AFD discussion. I've found that every so often, XFDcloser messes up relisting options. Either it doesn't remove the discussion from the old daily log or it doesn't post it to the new daily log or, even worse, it removes the AFD from the old log page and doesn't repost it to the new daily log and the discussion just falls through the cracks like it did here. But since XFDcloser works correctly 99% of the time, I guess it's an unpredictable bug to fix. But I appreciate you taking care of a problem that I didn't notice had occurred. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!01:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Other Writ! Just out of curiosity--did you try to delete this page yourself and were prevented? My understanding is that regular admins have the ability to delete interface pages; they just can't undelete or edit them; just wanted to check if that's accurate. Writ Keeper⚇♔06:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper. Yep, it did indeed give me an error message (like Template:Protected interface, except with "Only interface administrators and interface editors can delete it"). I know I can delete non-.js MediaWiki pages as well as .js pages in userspace, but .js MediaWiki pages seem to follow their own rules. Oh well, gives you guys something to do. Thanks for taking care of this! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Kitography. I wouldn't worry too much about whether the system recognizes it as reverted or not: it's pretty finicky (especially when there have been intervening edits by others), so as long as you've gotten rid of all the problem additions, that's all that matters. For warnings: when you're looking through an article's history (pages like this one), there's a blue or red button that says "talk" next to each username or IP address. If you click this button, you can leave that person a message or warning; if they continue making unhelpful edits after being warned, you can go to a page like this one to ask an admin to block them. In this case, though, the user has been already been warned several times and even blocked once previously, so I've now blocked them again, this time for a longer period. Thanks for helping clean this up! This is a part of Wikipedia where our processes can be kind of complicated, so if you run into any other similar issues, let me know and I'd be happy to take a look. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, HalloKurdish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Generally pictures don't make the best references because it's often unclear how to interpret them, resulting in various problems. I'd recommend finding a more conventional source like a book, newspaper, or trustworthy website to support your claim. If you have any questions about doing that or if you still want to cite an image, let me know the specifics and I'd be happy to provide additional help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Heya!
I'm excited to be here on Wikipedia and I am keen to get stuck in. I tried out a couple of edits and then thought I should really read the Getting Started page and learn more of the basics. I found editting tricky, in a philosophical way? Like, what is an improvement, really... Who am I to decide the 'right' way something should be written...
Anyway, I got completely overwhelmed by everything that there is to read and learn about the Wikipedia project and community and how to take part. I'm easily overwhelmed at the best of times, if I'm honest, and there is so much here. For years I've loved getting lost traversing a subject, leaving trails of tabs open in the browser to be forgotten and then my laptop gets grouchy.
Sorry I'm rambling. I think I'm messaging to ask - What are all the different ways that people get into Wikipedia? How do people find their way? Any tips for combining open minded exploration with productive focus? --Slaking Hermit (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Slaking Hermit! There are lots of ways, but I think the best one is just to look for ways to improve articles you're already reading. Even if you just notice a typo or an error or a poorly worded sentence every few weeks, that's still an improvement, and you'll slowly find yourself getting more involved. If you're looking for something more active than that, you could try finding an interesting page (maybe something from Wikipedia:Unusual articles, the ultimate rabbit hole) and trying to improve either that page or a lesser-known page linked from it. Or you could look at the lists of articles needing various forms of help, like Wikipedia:Community portal (scroll down to "Help out") or Wikipedia:Task Center. Just find something that you find interesting to work on, and don't let it turn into an obligation.
Don't second-guess yourself too much or worry about understanding all the rules: one of those rules is to be bold, and if you think something's an improvement, chances are you're right (and if not, someone will probably let you know). The two edits you made both look good to me, so you're off to a great start. The more you edit, the more familiar you'll get with the rules, norms, formatting, etc., and I promise it'll get much less intimidating even if you make a mistake or two along the way. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
A few weeks ago, I had a request seeking private discussion about my relations onsite. I did not want to discuss it openly, because I calculated that the contents would be too disturbing and the conversation would get redacted and revisions deleted anyway, but seeing that you were the first to grasp what I needed, are you in the mood to trade emails? Remember, this is about me and my current state of mind. The aim is to address what has been bothering me as of late. FreeMediaKid$04:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I have been busy uploading material to the Internet Archive much of the time since the original post, so I apologize for responding this late. Still, I want to better equip myself with how to handle what is still bothering me and not need to raise the issue again in the future. There is nothing about the conversation that requires oversight, and the ArbCom seems like the wrong place to go about it either. I have just sent the email. FreeMediaKid$18:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
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
Question from STANDPROFILE (19:27, 7 February 2024)
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I am new here. I would like to edits an entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_diplomacy) by including a "history" section. It looks like this page would benefit from some revision as there is the statement that it is "written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay", so to begin, I have two questions: 1) how should I process to add a "history" part (my suggestion would be to change "background" in "history" and revise parts. Does that work, or what would you suggest? 2) how can I translate the page in more languages? THANK YOU. --STANDPROFILE (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello STANDPROFILE, and welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, changing the "background" section to "history" would probably be an improvement. It looks like there's a fair amount of historical information under the heading "Implementing science diplomacy", so you could consider moving some of that up into the new history section. Let me know if you run into any issues with the actual mechanics of editing the page or if you have any other questions. Regarding translation: is there a particular language that you're fluent in and want to translate the article into? If so, let me know and I can help you figure out how the process for translations works on that language's Wikipedia. If not, I'd suggest just focusing on the English-language version for now. Again, let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply but THANKS A LOT, these are good suggestions. I will try making these changes soon, while I also will add some sentences more later. I get in touch if I have more questions in the revision process. Re. language, I could do German? STANDPROFILE (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response, Kindteenager. I guess my best editing tip would just be to find an article that interests you and try your best to improve it. Even if that improvement is just fixing a typo or rewording a sentence, it still makes the article better, and if you're working on things that interest you, you're more likely to want to keep doing it. I'll answer your question about citations below in just a moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Question from Kindteenager (18:31, 14 February 2024)
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sure. When you click the button to edit an article, do you see a button that looks like this: ? This is the citation button, and if you click it, it will open up a form that'll automatically create a citation for any website you enter in. You can also choose the "manual" option and select "basic" if you want to write the citation yourself. If you're not seeing that button, let me know what you're seeing instead and I can try to help. You can also take a look at this page for more information about citations, although some of it may not be very helpful if you're editing on a mobile phone. If you have any other questions (either about this or something else), feel free to ask! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Chapter requests
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Extraordinary Writ! A while ago you had mentioned to me over at WP:RX that you would be willing to provide chapters for the book The Words and Music of Bruce Springsteen by Rob Kirkpatrick and I was wondering if I could take you up on that? I'm specifically requesting the chapters on Nebraska and Born in the U.S.A.. Thanks! – zmbro(talk) (cont)20:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dr.Sajeev Nair. You can read this help page for information about how to create a new article. As it explains, topics are only notable enough for a Wikipedia article if they've been written about in detail by multiple trustworthy sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.), so make sure you're writing about something that meets that requirement. Let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery categories
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Extraordinary Writ,
I see you restored these categories. However, they are still empty. I will hold off tagging them again for a few hours but another editor or admin might very well tag them CSD C1. Of course, they then have another week to get things sorted out, I just hope that the editor who request their restoration realizes that if the categories remain empty for 7 days, they will be deleted again. Thanks for all of your work. LizRead!Talk!01:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I just stumbled across the message you left at WT:WPWA. Quite a story. That reminds me, I was going to check Newspapers.com now that it's working again...I'll go do that now. (If my meager assortment of talk-page stalkers has anything to add, feel free!) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there. Could you help take a look on this issue? There appears to be persistent inexplicable edits coming from said IP address with zero response to discussions. Appreciate your help on this. Thanks. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't help with this at the moment. ANI is watchlisted by a very large number of people, so you generally don't need to alert individual admins if you've already made a post there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Request to restore the redirects
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you want me to provide full context, here it is in quotation marks:
"This article had sources for citations, but only 60% of the article has citations, which means that 40% of the article has no citations. This article also fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone list."
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there! I'm new to how Wikipedia actually works and was wondering what the guidelines are for editing character descriptions in the cast section of a movie/tv show. Sometimes it'll just say "Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss" and sometimes there will be added information, e.g. "Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss, Brad's fiancée." Is there any rules as to when information like this should be added to a page? And if there are pages that still have the first option, can they be changed by people such as myself to have more info? Sorry if this makes no sense, I can try and explain better if needed :) --Funkcunk (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Funkcunk! Yes, it's fine to add a brief description if you think it'd be helpful. You can see this page (for films) and this page (for TV shows) for more detailed guidance, but generally speaking you can just use your judgment: if you think it's an improvement, you're probably right (and if someone disagrees, they'll let you know). For films, usually we keep the description to a handful of words; for TV shows, longer descriptions are a bit more common. (Not sure why...) But again, just use common sense and you'll be fine. Hope this helps—let me know if you have any other questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, Funkcunk. It sounds like the concern was that the descriptions repeated too much from the plot summary section. You could try making the descriptions shorter (maybe just a few words each) and/or focusing on characters who weren't mentioned in the plot summary. You can also leave a message for the user who undid your edit at User talk:MikeAllen—he has more experience writing about films than I do and might be able to give you some better advice. Don't be discouraged! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Oriyomi Esther Eriwayo. Unless you've been written about in detail by multiple trustworthy sources (books, news websites, etc.), you are probably not eligible to have a Wikipedia article created about you. We do allow people to provide a little information about themselves on their their user pages (click here to create yours), but promotional user pages will be deleted. Ultimately the goal of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia, and if you're just trying to create a profile page, I'd encourage you to use one of the many other websites designed for that purpose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Hello Jizams. Unless you've been written about in detail by multiple trustworthy sources (books, news websites, etc.), you're probably not eligible to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We do allow people to provide a little information about themselves on their their user pages (click here to create yours), but promotional user pages will be deleted. Ultimately the goal of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia, and if you're just trying to create a webpage for yourself, I'd encourage you to use one of the many other websites designed for that purpose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Ar.S.Anand Kumar. I see you've been trying to create an article about the Papni School of Architecture. In order for the school to be eligible for an article, it needs to have been written about in detail by multiple reliable sources (like books, newspapers, trustworthy websites, etc.). Has the Papni School of Architecture been written about by any of those kinds of sources? If not, it is unfortunately not eligible for an article at this time. Let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Request
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm just beginning to edit and draft in Wikipedia. I've just completed an article entitled "the size and shape of the atomic nucleus." A note at the top of the page states that the article is unassessed. How do I request an assessment? This is my first Wikipedia article and your suggestions would be most helpful!
Urayness --Urayness (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Urayness. Article assessments, which just involve someone assigning one of a few "grades" to the article, actually matter a lot less than many people expect, and there's not a lot of consistency about how they're assigned. Frequently someone will come across the article on their own and assess it (often as part of the process for reviewing new articles), so you may find it gets assessed at some point in the not-so-distant future. You could also ask at the physics WikiProject, where editors interested in physics congregate, if any of them wanted to assess the article and/or provide feedback. But again, it really doesn't make a difference how an article is assessed, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Let me know if you have any other questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
as a science teacher, I'm quite familiar with the arbitrary nature of grades. I wasn't sure if it needed to be graded before it's released into the wild, but I see now that that is not the case. case. I do have a question for you: as the author of the article, am I now the de facto arbitrator on the talk page? I ask because recently I had a diagram removed from the Oddo Harkins rule article for being not relevant enough followed by an invitation to have a discussion and negotiate about it. to me. this seemed unilateral. My understanding is that the discussion happens first followed by the decision to remove, if consensual. Urayness (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Urayness, these situations can unfold in several ways: sometimes people discuss and then remove, and sometimes people remove (to restore the status quo) and then discuss. There's no clear-cut rule; it depends on the circumstances and personal preferences. For your new article, being the original author doesn't give you any special rights or responsibilities, but if someone does make a change you disagree with, starting a discussion on the talk page is certainly a good next step. There's nothing stopping you from undoing the change first, but oftentimes it makes more sense to start with the conversation, especially if you want to get a better understanding of why the user did what they did. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Macbeth
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You moved Macbeth (opera), without a redirect, and now hundreds of links are leading to nonsense instead to a precise opera. Shouldn't in case of a move to a new name without redirect the links be fixed first?? I'd like to hope that's all an April Fool's joke, but the pedantic name change seems to be planned to stay, sigh. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Gerda. The links are being fixed as we speak. This issue happens whenever there's a move like this, and while people do come along eventually to fix the links, I'm happy to take care of it myself. There are technical reasons that make it difficult to fix the links first, unfortunately. As for the move itself, I don't have an opinion on whether it was a good idea or not—my job is just to assess consensus. Hope you're well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Extraordinary Writ,
New Page Review queue January to March 2024
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Hi JakobR32. It looks like someone else has already fixed this for you. If it happens again, try clicking the "edit" button at the very top of the page, which should always be there. Let me know if you have any other questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Mentor! I have a added a large contribution to a Regenerative Architecture section on the wiki page "Sustainable City". This is from some research I have done for a university project and I thought I could contribute. In my paragraphs, I often include in-sentence citations. I am used to APA citation and I did my best to replicate that for the Wiki system. Please let me know if I did anything wrong! Thank you and have a great day! --Kpendry (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Kpendry. Nice start! The citations look good. One thing to keep in mind is that the style and tone of a Wikipedia article can be pretty different from the way people are taught to write a research paper or essay. Since the goal of an encyclopedia article is to summarize rather than to persuade, we try to avoid phrases like "it is essential to acknowledge", for example. Just something to think about going forward. Let me know if you have any questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello أرمز. I understand from Google Translate that you're looking for an Arabic-language assistant. Unfortunately I don't speak Arabic, but user Meno25 is listed as being willing to help answer Arabic-language questions, so you could leave a message for them at User talk:Meno25. You could also try asking on the Arabic Wikipedia for help from an English-speaking editor. I hope this helps. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Move of Edward IV and Edward V of England
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, thanks a lot for being my mentor. I would like to ask, when I will be able to edit pages which are protected to prevent vandalism? --Iamuser1234567890 (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Iamuser1234567890. To edit most protected articles, you'll need to have made at least ten different edits (currently you've made six). Accounts also have to be at least four days old, which yours already is. Some articles have higher requirements (e.g., 30 days and 500 edits), though, so if there's a particular page you want to edit, let me know and I can tell you the specific threshold. Note that if you're not currently eligible to edit an article, you can still request a change by going to this page and following the instructions. Let me know if you have any other questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi AusLondonder. There's not a ton a closer can do when someone suggests an alternative to deletion and no one offers an argument against it (see here for the most recent DRV on this issue). If you want me to relist so you can make an argument against redirecting, I can do that, although I'm not sure it would be the best use of editors' time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Deborah Haarsma
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi!
Are you writing a draft right now about the The BioLogos Foundation's current president Deborah Haarsma? I was about to start a draft on her, but then saw the message that such an article is under draft by you. The draft of yours is undeleted. If you wish to continue the draft, please reply. I won't write the article myself or may contribute to your work. If you wish to delete it, then please reply. I will start the work myself. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
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
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.
Looks like Mellk has done some of it already, but I've taken care of the rest. I'm not sure how sources capitalize "Late Cretan School", so you're welcome to change that as well if necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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:
Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I noticed you carried out the mass move of pages associated with WP:LUGSTUBS. Today a few links popped up for R2 deletion, which were left behind from moves that cited WP:LUGSTUBS2. It seems as though this list should have been draftified, but no one ever went ahead and did so. I was wondering if you might be up to the task? Pinging @BilledMammal as proposer / the person who added the Template:Special draft tag to the original list. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, there was a lot of wording in the WP:LUGSTUBS2 closure about moving slowly and cautiously, so I don't think anyone was ever comfortable mass-moving them. Maybe BilledMammal can tell us where the process currently stands. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like there's been some discussion recently at Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list—apparently a pretty high proportion need to be redirected rather than draftified. Separating out the redirectable ones probably needs to be the first priority (BilledMammal had mentioned figuring that out via Quarry). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm still fairly new, so mistakes will be made, I hope my mistakes won't lead to my account being restricted in any way. I'll check out the Task Center soon Jimmy neutron the third (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!
I've created an article recently that I realize has a Spanish translation. How do I connect these two articles in the "Languages" tab on the top right of the "article space" page? --Caireau (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Caireau! This is kind of hard to explain, so if you want, feel free to just tell me the two articles you want connected and I can take care of it for you. But here are the steps:
Go to the Spanish Wikipedia article.
From the "Herramientas" menu (top right), choose "Elemento de Wikidata".
You are now on Wikidata, which is part of the Wikipedia "family" of sites. Click "log in" and sign in with your same Wikipedia username and password.
Where it says "Wikipedia (1 entry)", click "edit".
Type "en" (for English) into the "wiki" field".
Copy-and-paste the name of the English Wikipedia article (the one you created) into the "page" field.
Prwiz33, it is strongly discouraged—see this page for an explanation of why. If there's already an article about you, this page will let you request changes to it; the suggestions will be reviewed by other editors to make sure they're unbiased and appropriate. If there isn't already an article about you, it's almost never a good idea to create one yourself. Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I've added a box to your draft with a blue button that says "Submit the draft for review!"—when you're ready, push that button and it'll go into the queue for review. Before you do that, though, it's important to cite reliable sources (books, newspapers, magazine, trustworthy websites, etc.) that are independent of the Solidance project and talk about about it in detail. Reviewers will be looking for those kinds of sources to see whether Solidance is eligible for an article, and if there aren't any of those sources, it may be too soon for it to have an article at this time. Let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Claimed permissions on user page
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Henry Akpan David. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide information about non-notable people. Contributors to Wikipedia can create a user page to talk briefly about themselves (click here to create yours), but it can be deleted if it's used for self-promotion. (For privacy reasons, you shouldn't put your phone number on Wikipedia.) Let me know if you have any questions about how to contribute to the encyclopedia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, as you suggested in response to my PERM request, 'Trying AfC reviewing first might be a good idea,' I have submitted a request for the AFC Helper script. Please approve it so that I can review and decline articles that don't meet the requirements. Grabup (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't typically review those requests—Primefac does. If you want my opinion, though, it's that you should spend a couple of months getting more experience with deletion before applying for additional advanced permissions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. Could you advise me on which deletion process I should focus on gaining more experience with? Grabup (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Just keep working on CSDs and especially AfDs. Notability can't be fully understood in just a couple of weeks—it takes time to recognize some of the nuances. Try participating in AfDs where several people disagree with each other. Anyone can !vote delete in the easy discussions, but being able to make a source-based and policy/guideline-based argument in a more complicated case is what really matters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I am actively working on CDSs. Only today, I found 8 spam self-promotional drafts (more can found), which I reported and will be deleted. As for AFDs, I agree everyone can vote delete, but most of the time, I mention guidelines like WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR, WP:MUSIC, and more. After your and Spicy’s comments, I am now adding my votes while briefly discussing why the article should be deleted. For example, you can see this [1],[2]. Thanks for the suggestions, I am learning more day by day. Grabup (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I hope you are well. It's been a month since my PERM was declined, and I'd like to get feedback on my eligibility to get NPP right based on my AfDs, CSDs, and AfC reviews. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk18:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Grabup. It looks like you've been doing good work since we last talked. You are still moving very quickly, and in my opinion spending another month or two at AfC and AfD would a good idea. I see you've nominated a few articles at AfD recently; this is a good way to show you can identify non-notable articles on your own. By the way, most of what new page patrollers do can actually be done by anyone: just go to Special:NewPagesFeed, select "new page patrol", and look for articles that need to be CSDed, AfDed, tagged for notability, etc. This is a good chance to practice. Anyways, it's up to you when you want to make the PERM request; the reviewing admin (who won't be me) will decide at that point whether you have enough experience. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A company is notable if it's been covered in detail by multiple independent and reliable sources (see WP:NCORP). Being funded or listed doesn't guarantee notability. But regardless, you shouldn't be trying to use broad articles like Online food ordering to promote a single company, whether notable or not. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, I believe that there was no clear consensus for this move.
Would you be willing to elaborate on how you came to this result? FortunateSons (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
FortunateSons, I don't think I have much to add to what I said in the closure: I gave greater weight to !votes that engaged with the sources and relevant policies and guidelines than those that offered only personal opinions about the appropriate descriptor. The argument that "massacre" is not "the common name" used "in a significant majority of English-language sources" was not seriously rebutted by opposers. Happy to answer any specific questions you might have, and you're always welcome to have the close reviewed at WP:MR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Can I ask you to reconsider this as well – you say that the claim was "not seriously rebutted", but a long list of sources using the term 'massacre' was provided. I personally didn't feel the need strongly rebut the move request rationale as this list was already provided before I !voted, and I didn't think for a moment that people would seriously support the notion that the deliberate killing of dozens of civilians should not be described a massacre, nor that an admin would consider closing the debate in such a manner. The fact that the outcome has gone that way reflects incredibly poorly on Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral source on the subject area IMO.
That's a bit of re-litigation, no? In any case, @Number 57:, what would you say is the ratio of usage of "attack" vs "massacre"? Even if it 1:1, then we should be choosing the more neutral name, as policy requires there be "a significant majority" before we can use a name with value judgement.VR(Please ping on reply)23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
"people would seriously support the notion that the deliberate killing of dozens of civilians should not be described a massacre". As I argued in the RM, "attack" doesn't rule out the deliberate killing of civilians, for example, see September 11 attacks, 2008 Mumbai attacks etc.VR(Please ping on reply)23:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Massacre is a neutral description for what happened in Nir Oz, just as it is for events like the Dunblane massacre. Using 'attack', a word that does not necessity imply any deaths (the Danish prime minister was just attacked by somemone), is inappropriate. Number5723:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't contested in the RM that "massacre" ("indiscriminate and brutal slaughter") is a term that passes judgment, and indeed it appears in one of the examples at WP:NPOV#Naming. Policy is not to use such a term unless it's "the common name" used "in a significant majority of English-language sources". I certainly noticed FortunateSons's list of sources using "massacre", but that kind of list doesn't rebut the supporters' argument that such sources don't amount to a significant majority. Of course I understand why the outcome is contentious, but as a closer the best way I can enhance "Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral source" is to apply policy consistently and as written, which is what I tried to do here. If you don't think I've been successful, you're welcome to start an MR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This article definitely feels like an advertisement, but I can't pinpoint what exactly makes me feel that way, do you think you could point me in the right direction? --AFrogThatExist (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi AFrogThatExist! This article had a lot of promotional language when it was first flagged as an advertisement, but most of the problematic content has already been removed, so that's why you're not seeing any obvious issues. I think the main reason the article might still seem "off" is that it's written from the perspective of the company: it tells you what Flexcar "started", "changed", "announced", etc., but there's not much in the way of outside analysis telling you what others thought about the company. The best way to fix this problem would be to find additional news articles, books, etc. that talk about Flexcar (beyond the two sources currently cited) and incorporate them into the article. But this is kind of an advanced task, so it's absolutely fine if you want to just move on and look for an article that needs your help more urgently. Here's a list of all the articles that were recently tagged as advertisements, and here are some that just need to be rewritten in places—maybe something there takes your fancy? Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any other questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I did have a question about others editing a page. When I edit a page and provide a reference/source that is reliable, it keeps getting removed by editors even though I’ve backed it up.
Recently, I edited a football mangers page to say they signed to a new club and proving a reliable source but it kept getting removing even though the manager even announced it. Is there any way to stop this or report others who do unnecessary editing and just troll? Kbbeatz (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Kbbeatz. You mention providing reliable references/sources, but I'm not seeing any in your edits...that's probably part of the problem. If you're using the mobile view, the easiest way to cite a source is to 1) click the edit button, 2) click the pencil menu that appears, 3) choose "visual editing", and 4) click the citation button, which looks like a quotation mark: . It will then walk you through the process of adding information about your source. If these steps don't make sense, let me know what you see instead and I can try to help. Citing sources is very important, and it makes it less likely that your edit will be undone.
There are also a couple things to be aware of about sports articles. Information is often removed when it hasn't been officially confirmed; rumors and press speculation aren't enough. That's why your edit adding Graham Potter a couple days ago was undone. Sometimes there can also be issues when a change has been announced but hasn't actually taken effect yet, and if there's a disagreement you can click on the "talk" button to start a conversation about the edit. But once Steve Cooper was appointed, adding his name was fair game, and it looks like all the articles currently include it. Hope this helps: if there's anything I can provide more clarification on, just let me know. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Legendarycool. If someone is vandalizing Wikipedia (defined as deliberately trying to make things worse, you should undo the edit and write a warning on the user's talk page. (To find someone's talk page, click on the article's "view history" button and look for the "talk" button next to the vandal's name.) If the user continues vandalizing even after an appropriate number of warnings, go to this page and follow the instructions to make a report for administrators. Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi YannGuidon. Thanks for uploading these images! To add a picture to the sidebar ("infobox"), go to the Libre-SOC article and click edit. Click the pencil and choose "visual editing" if you're not already in that mode. Click on the sidebar itself and click the "edit" button that pops up. Now, copy and paste the full name of the file you want to use into the "image" field. You can also put something in the "caption" field, but you can leave the "image_size" field blank. Click "apply changes", check that everything looks right, and click "publish changes" when you're done.
The image you already added looks good! It's a bit large, though: the default width is 220px, but yours is at 400px. I'd suggest restoring the default, which you can do by clicking "edit", clicking on the image itself, clicking "edit", clicking "advanced", and choosing "default". (Readers can always enlarge the image themselves if they want.) You're welcome to experiment, though. Here's some more information about image size (and other things) if you're interested in knowing more. Let me know if you have any other questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Bori is a term used in Bengali language to refer to dried balls made out of lentils. These dried lentil balls are used as a delicacy in popular bengali foods like shukto (a mix veggie curry made in a milk, mustard poppy seed gravy) Dr. DB1mini (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I will admit it is one of the more eclectic nominations in a long time. I liked the "real people" reminder. Thanks for participating. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Johnson360sadfg, I only answer questions about editing Wikipedia—you can find information about freelancing sites elsewhere on the Internet. But if you're thinking about using freelance sites to edit Wikipedia for pay, you should be aware that our rules strongly discourage paid editing and require you disclose who is paying you. People who don't follow these rules may be blocked from editing. If you want to make money from a freelancing platform, I'd encourage you to offer a skill other than editing Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there,
I'm Mehzad and as you probably know, you are my mentor. If you don't mind, I had a quick question to ask:
I wanted to know what are your main sources for adding more to an article other than searching through Internet? --Mehzad Sepehr (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mehzad. Searching online is the most common way people find sources, but books and scholarly journals can also be very useful. If you have access to a library, that can be a great way to access those kinds of sources in print; otherwise, you can often find them through free sites like OpenLibrary (for books) and Internet Archive Scholar (for scholarly articles). If you stick around here for long enough, you can also get access to the Wikipedia Library, which lets you use many sources that you can't otherwise access. Ultimately, you should just try to use the most reliable sources you have access to, whether they're online, offline, or both. Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello GKVMcDonald. This help page will probably answer most of your questions about creating a new article. Pay special attention to the section on "gathering references and establishing notability": a topic needs to have been discussed in detail by multiple reliable sources to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Once you've read that, the Article Wizard will walk you through the steps of actually creating the article. Let me know if you have any questions along the way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 63
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Apologies for using the wrong template on John J. Fisher Jr.. Can you help me finish setting up the Articles for Deletion page? I cannot because I do not have an account. Although I see that state legislators are "presumed" to have notability, my understanding is that under WP:GNG that is not guaranteed.
In this specific case, the person in question was only in office for less than a day, appointed to fill in for someone who resigned. Thank you! 173.175.200.238 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Extraordinary Writ,
I like the notice you posted at Draft:Mehran Tebyani saying that the draftification is the result of an AFD closure. Did you just write this up yourself or is there an existing template notice that states this? Thanks for any insight you have. LizRead!Talk!00:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Liz. No, I just wrote it myself and used Template:Ombox to display it. I don't tend to get involved in the template namespace, but if you think it's useful you're welcome to do whatever you like with it. Hope you're doing well. (On a totally unrelated note, I was skimming your talk page recently and was thoroughly amused by this animation. I'm glad you rescued it from deletion!) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!, I want to know about BSc in applied biology which is offered by MWENGE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY {MWECAU} in Moshi Kilimanjaro Tanzania --JoeTheThinker (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I could have sworn there was a possible outcome to have a no consensus review possibly overturn a close to no consensus, but I guess there's just the option to relist - is this something you'd be willing to do? Not an area where I typically edit but I think we've gotten this wrong. SportingFlyerT·C05:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi SportingFlyer; hope you're well. The MRV (and DRV) instructions don't give me much guidance on how to use my discretion to relist, but typically it makes sense when the RM saw low participation, new information/arguments have come to light, and/or many editors !voted relist. This one was exactly the opposite of that kind of situation (a gargantuan RM that everyone agreed was ripe for closure), so there's no reason to relist unless I bring in my own opinions about whether the closer read consensus correctly, which I don't think is what that discretion is there for. I know there's been a fair amount of frustration with this outcome, but there's only so much I can do without ending up in supervote territory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. It's just frustrating that a close which should have been no consensus sticks because the move review was actually no consensus. SportingFlyerT·C15:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Miscellaneous
Bureaucrat changes
Technical news
? This is the citation button, and if you click it, it will open up a form that'll automatically create a citation for any website you enter in. You can also choose the "manual" option and select "basic" if you want to write the citation yourself. If you're not seeing that button, let me know what you're seeing instead and I can try to help. You can also take a look at this page for more information about citations, although some of it may not be very helpful if you're editing on a mobile phone. If you have any other questions (either about this or something else), feel free to ask! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Sent, zmbro. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Irruptive Creditor -- Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
; see Talk:William Burnham Woods for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Irruptive Creditor -- Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Opposition to Chavismo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1 § Opposition to Chavismo until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPathtalk 10:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
