This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
I shouldn't have semi-indeffed Two-spirit, even though it needs the protection, as I edit the page. Could you please redo the protection so it's clean? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan☊☼20:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan Just to make sure I understand correctly, you'd like me to remove and then reinstate the indef semi protection. Alternatively, I think I could just "endorse" the protection by protecting the already-protected page and it would appear in the log (if that makes any sense). EvergreenFir(talk)22:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
May I ask if you could semi-protect Pachycephalosaurus and Triceratops for a while? They're being targeted by an anonymous editor using different IPs to rewrite the type species in order to introduce erroneous info while ignoring and deliberately changing the invisible comments explaining why the type species are not be changed. Mr Fink (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Assistance required regarding a user you've warned before
อย่ามาตบะ is the user in question. I've been trying to resolve a dispute about how to go about dealing with the infobox for House of Representatives (Thailand) and his responses in my talk page have been extremely unhelpful. It has come to a point where I do not think WP:3O will be of any use. He has also persistently reverted what I've edited despite insisting that the article must stay frozen until we've come to a conclusion. I've been forced to undo his reversions because if I don't do so he would simply ignore my side of the discussion (I've waited in good faith and determined that he's actually not willing to talk without his version being struck down). I would like to ask for your adjudication on this matter and how to move forward with these kinds of incidents in the future since I've never participated in the conflict resolution process before. If my conduct in this matter has been sub-par I most certainly will welcome feedback and advice. KrebsLovesFiesh (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol newsletter
Hello EvergreenFir,
New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023
Backlog update:
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip:
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip:
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Hi, back in July you blocked Special:contributions/2601:152:5080:9D30:0:0:0:0/64 for 3 days for disruption and "likely block evasion/socking". I know it's been a while, but I don't suppose you remember, or can easily figure out now, whose block the IP was evading? I tried to figure it out myself but failed. I was thinking maybe MegaSmike46, but my knowlege of the subject matter is nil, so I didn't want to reblock the range (for a lot longer, they are prolific) without more. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Ain't that the truth? Usually, I don't try. So, we have "my" range (Rockville, Maryland), "your" (blocked) range (Rockville), and Special:contributions/24.126.30.250 (Rockville) referred to in your blocked range...+ the block log of the 24. IP, which indicates it was CU-blocked for 6 months back in January 2023 by NinjaRobotPirate. That's enough for me to block my range for 6 months, which I just did.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Hello! Youtube videos are usually not considered reliable sources unless they are about the person in the video or from a major news organization. If you can find a source like AV Club that says there's a cult following, that would help support your edit. As for other articles, unfortunately we cannot catch every instance of poor sourcing. If you know of them, I suggest either making an edit request or removing them yourself. EvergreenFir(talk)20:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Ok, done. Maybe they'll move on to another school or an elevated level of maturity by the time the block expires (she thought, simultaneously hopeful and doubtful).-- Ponyobons mots18:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
List of presidents and vice presidents of the United States
Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, EvergreenFir. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 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.
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.
Respond to this at your leisure, but I saw that you removed the Universal Kids tag from the Tree Fu Tom article, when it lists the networks it was on. Why, if I may ask? I know it hasn't aired on it for a while, and it was before it even rebranded, but I think it's still somewhat accurate. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong, but why not put it back, with perhaps more accuracy? Triviatronic9000 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi; thanks for the block. You may want to take further action, as this user has accused myself and other editors of being "Nazi thugs" (diff) and is making threats to evade blocks (1, 2). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello again. Sorry if what I said on the last topic of conversation was bad in some way. I don't know what I said, but I'll try and do better, if I know what I said. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Malaysian IP rangeblock
I have been contacted by a Malaysian user who says:
WP:BLPN#Luis Elizondo (see OP's talk page} which is related to WP:FTN#UFOlogy promoter BLPs We are getting new editors on these topics more or less every day. And given the attempt to dox an editor, I'm taking this all very seriously and it's a time swamp. Read the Reddit thread[10] if you have the stomach (and of course time and interest, don't if you lack these). And this one[11]. Thanks. Doug Wellertalk09:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I have just requested for page protection and i see you have done it just before i put in the request. Thank you very much. I have reverted multiple of the same exact edits from different users. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@Elvisisalive95 great minds think alike! I reverted an addition related to rapping earlier and saw in the history that it's continuing so I added the protection. Hopefully that will stop the disruption for now. EvergreenFir(talk)05:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes they do! I appreciate it. I originally just added a short sentence about it under his personal life. Then it got turned into people adding an entire discography, including him in rapper categories, and most recently the changes to his occupation. Let’s hope this stops it! Thanks again & i’ll see you around. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 05:58, 29 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
Hey so this diff. I had warned for removing content without accurately explaining why. This came after this edit by the IP in which they were warned by another user. Not to mention a plethora of other unexplained removals. Looking again at their repeated deletion here, where they gave the explanation “fake news” I can see how i overlooked that. But to the eye of someone patrolling recent changes and their talk page it sure seemed like it was constituting vandalism at the time. Just wanted you to see where i was coming from. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Moving this here because NOTFORUM things. But radfem seems to be a self-created label. TERF seems to be a label from one group of radfems to distinguish themselves from TERFs. Comes off a bit like old school splits in the Internacional. Because of course radical socialist are the natural enemy of capitalists, monarchists, socialists, globalists, anarchists, socialists, that neighbor who let's their dog crap on your lawn, oligarchs, socialists, and above all other socialists. GMGtalk12:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you seem to be going through my contribs and reverting them, giving justifications that are, on face, rather weak? This all seems vaguely antagonistic, though, of course I will assume good faith. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Good call on the prot, but changed to semi based on the fact that all of the disruption is anons, new accounts, and is pretty sporadic - Alisontalk19:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh wow, you're 100% right. I'm not sure why but I had thought you reverted the edit including the comment's text for some reason. I definitely deserve a trout for that.
Just a heads up that guy you just edit blocked for us is just doing stuff on his talk page now. Id like to also take the time to thank you for doing that, definitely a interesting past 15-20 minutes for me. Good work.
In 2020, you had protected the page to permanently restrict edits to autoconfirmed editors and at the same time, indefinitely restrict moves to sysops only. Is it OK with you to have the move protection to be reduced to match the edit protection? – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
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.
Your response was "?" You know more about revision deletion than I do, but if "normal" editing is not subject to revision deletion then hiding the edit is misuse of the tool. Please read the comment and let me know whether a "normal" administrator (i.e. yourself) would consider it to be
"Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material...long-term abuse...personal attack...troll".
Something else I discovered this morning: at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 24#Blocking IPs per request of school administration? an IP asked that where IT departments have procedures in place to ensure editing is constructive pupils should not be blocked from editing. This was seconded by Doug Weller. Seven hours and two minutes later, without any notification to the participants, an administrator blocked the IP for five years, claiming "long-term abuse". Again, I can see no basis for the call whatsoever. Another example I spotted this morning: IP 80.5.88.70, which appeared to be making really constructive edits, was blocked for three years eight hours after editing without any kind of warning by the same administrator. The reason given in the block log was "long-term abuse from this IP". Couldn't the administrator have engaged with the editor first? Judging by the amount of RD2 deletions on this page over the past decade there may be a lot of people watching who have an opinion on the matter. 92.25.133.126 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
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.
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Marceline the Vampire Queen: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. –DMartin05:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Updated White Mexicans Metrics
I see you went ahead and combed through the recent publications we have on the data which is appreciative and great! However, why is the info box still displaying numbers that were completely made up and not backed by a single source? Analyticalreview (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you able to even see the pie chart provided? They clearly state by their calculations (which are not official by any means), the Mestizo population is 62%, Amerindian 7%, and "Other" is 31%. If we are assuming everyone in the other category is "White" (which the article itself states not everyone in the "Other" category is in the White category)
Here is the quote:
Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population
So if I was being extremely strict to what the source is explicitly stating we actually would not be able to even say it is 30% (it is in fact probably lower due to what all other sources state). Analyticalreview (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
My mistake here is the full quote:
Mexico’s population is composed of many ethnic groups, including indigenous American Indians (Amerindians), who account for less than one-tenth of the total. Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population.
Here are the numbers the pie chart provides:
62% Mestizo
31% Other
7% Amerindian
It is stated a "significant amount" of the Other percentage is indeed Mexicans of predominate European ancestry but it's definitely not all of them which they make clear. We also have Afro-Mexicans (which according to official government publications make up around 2% of the population), Asian-Mexicans, etc. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see such chart on the ref used in the article, I see a picture of a church though. There may be a misunderstanding here, as the chart you mention does appear in the "Kids Brittanica" site and is dated as being from 2012, but rather than argue wheter this has to be threated as a different source or wheter it is outdated now or not I want to use your sudden openess to accept much higher percentages of White Mexicans as an oportunity to ask you: do you agree now that sources such as the World Factbook who report percentages as low as 9% (or your edits from last month to the article [13][14]) are completely disconnected of reality?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Nope, the 10% figure is the most accurate one. Mexico never had anywhere near the post independence European migration that the USA or South America had. The 40% figure is the one completely disconnected from reality. Also, here is the most recent Britannica article on Mexico which states:
"More than three-fifths of Mexico’s people are mestizos, about one-fifth are American Indians, and the bulk of the rest are of European ancestry."
This would have the figure much closer to 20%, not 40% like you pulled out of thin air.
What your last reply proves is that Brittanica does not update uniformly, with no mention that their entry focused ethnic groups alone should take precedence over other entries for the country (that one is also the most recently updated), I don't get why you say that the 40% figure was materialized of thin air when you cited that Brittanica entry yourself[15], you shouldn't ignore Mexico's government surveys whose results range from 29% (similar to Kids Brittanica) to 49% either. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Read the updated intro done by @EvergreenFir themselves. Let me clarify, they wrote this, not me.
"The government releases data on the percentage of "light-skinned Mexicans" in the country, with 12.5% of Mexican people surveyed choosing the three lightest shades in 2017. Using the same skin tone categories, a 2022 survey found that 10.2% chose the three lightest shades."
Evergreenfir acknowledges on her diff that the standard of the government is H-K and that wrote it that way for comparative purposes[16], she also restored the 40% figure recently[17]. Furthermore the talk page of another editor is not the proper place to discuss on this kind of manner, even if that editor is an administrator, I'll see you in the talk page of White Mexicans[18] where I've been waiting for you for more than one month now as you seem to have come full circle with your arguments again. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Have a look
It is regarding this article. The IP range changed/removed sourced content immediately after the protection (set by you) expired. Please take a look. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I know you must be a very busy person, but, if you are interested and available, I'd like you to take a look at the feminist metaphysics article. I have dedicated myself to expanding it and I believe that your knowledge can help, even if it's with small adjustments. Thanks! 😊 Gmsrubin (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, can revision-deletion be done for this? I feel like it qualifies, but let me know if it does not (as I don't normally make such requests). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)12:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
You have prematurely closed the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Unsourced_defamatory_claim_about_Bret_Weinstein. Would you please reopen it? Insofar as I can determine the parties commenting on the issue are ignoring the clear text of MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:LEAD. If indeed the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:LEAD does not apply to BLP articles then that carve-out seems to indicate a change is required to the text of MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:LEAD. E.g. "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads"
Given Wikipedia's sensitivity to the the integrity of BLP articles, I'd expect that more attention would be paid to compliance with the clear text of Wikipedia polices. RealLRLee (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
No. You are the one who is ignoring (or refusing to hear) the policy. You received multiple opinions, all in agreement. If you think a citation is needed, use the article's talk page to ask for one to be added. There's plenty in the article to choose from. EvergreenFir(talk)20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
If everyone agrees with one interpretation of policies and guidelines, and agree with a different interpretation at some point you'll have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Insofar as I can determine the disputed lack of citation(s) is in violation of MOS:CITELEAD, MOS:LEAD, and BLP ("All quotations and challenged material must be supported by inline citations to reliable, published sources"). Of course I could be wrong. But, prior to User:EvergreenFir's premature closing of the discussion, I was unsuccessful in eliciting a reasoned explanation as to why those policies don't require the disputed claim to be correct cited or removed.
And now, as User:EvergreenFir preemptively closed the discussion, there is no opportunity to obtain the as yet missing reasoned explanation.
User:ScottishFinnishRadish: l "have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on"? Really? Are you entirely sure that you're being truthful here? As a Wikipedia administrator I would expect that you'd be very attentive to the veracity of your claims. RealLRLee (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure. Sometimes our interpretations, the weight we apply to different policies and guidelines, or simply how we'd like something presented in an article don't have consensus. Happens to the best of us, even me, a vaunted Wikipedia administrator. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
User:ScottishFinnishRadish: Indeed? I'd expect that were you closely adhering to the obligations that Wikipedia places on administrators for veracity and knowledge of Wikipedia policies then your "[I] have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on" would have been written, instead, "[I] have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on [or pursue the matter further via Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms]".
If, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, I am misunderstanding the expectations that Wikipedia places on administrators then please explain how I'm getting this wrong.
Indeed! I'll have you know I'm the Heimlich county substitute administrator of the year three years running.
You've already discussed this on the talk page and BLPN. That's about as solid as consensus comes without a well attended RFC. Wasting a bunch of editor time pushing for more and more dispute resolution when there's a clear consensus isn't worthwhile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I am a new Wikipedia editor but my girlfriend, who has some expertise in these matters is pleased that her tutoring has her none-too-bright boyfriend not looking like a neophyte.
She predicted that my habits of careful reasoning would bestir some of the people involved in Wikipedia editing. The constraints of WP:GOODFAITH prevent me from quoting her specific comments on this matter.
For instance, Usage by extremists and terrorists of 'Allah Akbar', portrayed as a cinematic trope. Check out almost every Wikipedia article on the Quran - they sanitize or avoid the contentious elements.
@Kelator: I don't understand what you're saying. That new users get banned for editing on that one page? Because from the edit history, it's all one user with different accounts. Speaking of which, do you have a previous account? EvergreenFir(talk)23:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
If you can not understand what I am saying, then it is no wonder, Wikipedia's active-editor numbers are declining.
Heya, hope you're well. I've just noticed that you protected the Graham Linehan page for three months. Is there any way I could convince you to stretch it to an indef, or at least longer? The page has undergone a pattern of "protected for a year/6 months, immediately the same behaviour starts after the protection ends, page is protected again", repeated again and again for about five years. It's almost definitely not going to end any time soon, and because of the subject's anti-trans views I think there's a case for an indefinite semi-protection under GENSEX at this point. No worries if not, just said I'd ask to try protect the article from having the same happen again. Thanks, — ser!(chat to me - see my edits)17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think we've interacted before and I hope it's alright that I ask you, but could you delete this revision (contains a slur; no sensitive material or privacy concerns) of the article LGBT rights in Europe if you agree that it meets the RD2 criterion? Felida97 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)