This is an archive of past discussions with User:Maddy from Celeste. 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.
Welcome!
Hi Maddy from Celeste! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Hi there, Maddy from Celeste, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us with coverage of activists. I see you have already created a short biography in this connection. If you have not already done so, you might like to look through our Ten Simple Rules. As you are fluent in a number of languages, you might be interested in contributing to our upcoming translation contest. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Anarchism
Hi Maddy from Celeste,
I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!
Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar03:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - but also ...
Hi! I wanted to thank you for your recent edits preventing vandalism. However, I also noticed, per WP:SIGAPP, your signature is not currently comfortably readable. Please either change the color used or the background used. Thanks! :) Réunion (talk to me) 20:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
On that signature: being so long, and highlighted, it tends to dominate any talk page to which you contribute (as here) and make it more difficult for other editors to read the discussion. I wonder if you'd consider trimming it down a little? Thanks. PamD07:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Better, thanks - but highlighted backgrounds always seem a bit "look at me", don't you think? And even when shorter, it does make it quite distracting for people reading talk pages. Thanks, anyway. PamD18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
May Women in Red events
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
Hi Maddy from Celeste! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Google Books vs. Open Library, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Aravalli Range while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting that misgendering on Gwen Araujo's page. As a trans woman that means a lot to me! Awesome to see another trans editor :D Stephanie921 (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I did a quick google and found lots of articles regarding that. I was a bit surprised at the lack of major news sources. I should have checked further. It appears Moen made some observations Forbes article and the nuts took off with it. Thank again! Adakiko (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
when concerned about a user's lack of communication, communicating to them using the words "going straight to level 4im" or similar technical terms isn't going to help them.
By the way, for future cases like this, is AIV the right venue or does it belong on a noticeboard like ANI or NPOVN? ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk19:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, NPOVN is more about article content. I'd use NPOVN if the case is less clear and/or I seem to be arguing against many others. NPOVN (or WP:BLPN) can then be helpful to attract the attention of experienced users who can help to enforce policies by editing the article content or joining a talk page discussion. There's also WP:COIN, but it's for "determining if" someone has a COI, which isn't really debatable in Uitvlugtandci's case. As Uitvlugtandci has clearly edit warred (including their IP edits), WP:ANEW would probably have been ideal. WP:ANI catches all other cases.
I'm not really complaining about you having used AIV, though; many users do so to quickly gain administrator attention, and your report did lead to administrative action, so I can't complain about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
After your closure of the RM discussion at Talk:Less Than Zero (The Weeknd song), one of the two involved titles currently has "Than" with uppercase and the other one has "than" with lowercase. Did you intend it to come out that way? The capitalization question was part of that discussion, but was not mentioned in your closing summary, and I want to know if there is any conclusion about that aspect. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@BarrelProof I didn't touch the other one since it was done by another editor; now that you mention it, though, I'll move it to follow the same convention. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk16:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I suggest to also amend your closing remarks to explicitly describe your conclusion (or lack of conclusion) about the capitalization. I plan to submit a multi-article RM for all remaining uppercase topics, so it is important to me to have clarity about the outcome of that RM on the capitalization question. That outcome will be the basis of my upcoming RM. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The majority of Adıyaman's population is not Kurdish, the majority of the population is Turks, another majority is Zazas, only the range village is a predominantly Kurdish place.
@Burtigin I really am not involved in this issue at all. I just saw you delete information about Kurds in Turkey without any explanation, so I reverted it. You should use edit summaries to explain why you are removing text. Regards, |Madeline.21:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in September 2022
Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
I don't believe you have enough editing experience and experience working in the AFD area to be closing deletion discussion, especially on sensitive subjects. If you intend to do this again, please review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and make sure that you understand when an RFC or AFD closure can be done by a non-admin and when it is a better idea to leave that task to an administrator or more experienced editor. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. You have new messages at Talk:TV Tropes. Message added 15:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Something similar happened to be a few weeks ago, a random insertion of text, its like some kind of bizarre shortcut being activated with out knowledge of it. So maybe a bug of some kind. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi - when a article contains a direct quote, please don't change the wording of it even if you think it contains a grammatical error. The only time you should change the wording of quotes is if you have checked the source, and found that someone made a mistake when transcribing it (or if it's been vandalised of course). Cheers GirthSummit (blether)10:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
@Shirin1988: to be honest I'm not that well-versed in the articles for creation process, but here you need to show that the subject of your draft is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term. That means you need to find sources that are independent of Taha that have written something significant about him. Madeline (part of me) 22:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a while back you edited the CIB article removing promotional language. I wanted to let you know that I've nominated it for deletion here after looking for sources to justify its continued existence and not finding much. Jtrrs0 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Nice job on this, thanks for your work. Normally, Normally I'd have a look and make some tweaks or additions, but I'm snowed under, so no time just now. Here's one tip you may (or may not) find interesting: look up markedness. I think you'll see the applicability right away, although there may not be anything out there yet linking the concept to cisnormativity, but there will, in time. It's the reason that the statistically variant/minority term gets named first, and happens in all areas; some unmarked terms include landline, surface street, cisgender, and endosex. Anyway, just keep this on deep background for now, until there's a source about it. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
After looking around a bit, the closest I found was a reference to markedness (in its more usual inflection, marked or unmarked) near a reference to cisgender, and I wasn't surprised that it popped up on Serano's blog, here. Our article Cisgender credits someone else with making that connection, which is fine, but at least it mentions it. Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that! I just did some cursory looking, and also couldn't really find any sources that directly connect cisnormativity and markedness. Bauer et al. (2009) credits Whipping Girl for pretty much the same idea, which I'll try to work into the article once I take time to actually read through the book and locate where it's presented, but ctrl-f suggests that Serano didn't directly employ the language of markedness there. Madeline (part of me) 12:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
My edit was not wrong
Deep frying is actually unhealthy and should only be enjoyed in moderation. Not sure how this is disruptive. You don't own Wikipedia, remember that. Taco Supreme Fries (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Inmarsat logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
 Thanks I started to panic! I realized midstream that I was way over my head; so I fessed up to it; and asked for help; and there you were! Thanks again! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Re: There is no such thing as an unpolitical question.
Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.
I am increasingly distressed by some edits to the Wikipedia page about my work. I raised this earlier today and the issue was resolved. The material has now been added again. This material offers an unbalanced and negative view of my work -particularly as it is featured at the top of the article. The material is clearly added by a soap fan who wants to tarnish my reputation. Can you please advise how this can be rectified as this feels like being remotely bullied. Robhaywood10 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
On 26 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucile Abreu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after winning a discrimination lawsuit against the Honolulu Police Department, Lucile Abreu became its first female detective? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucile Abreu. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lucile Abreu), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The Cadillac Ranger (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Thanks for uploading File:Genspect logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
you reverted an update of the page made by NoHateInGA. I reviewed the content posted by NoHateInGA and found it to be factually true and in agreement with the cited source. This was a big deal in the Georgia legislature this week. What gives with taking this content down?! Based on your page and background this is even more surprising. CogentCrusader (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on your page and background this is even more surprising.
Are you insinuating that because I am queer, I should not care about Wikipedia policy? If this is the attitude you're bringing here, I strongly suggest you don't. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me;06:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. 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.
Love that "Live footage of me reading the latest ANI hellthread" picture on your user page, by the way. Have you paid a visit to EEng and the museums recently? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for quality articles such as Cisnormativity, Lucile Abreu and Transgender history in Finland, for welcoming new users and dealing with move requests, for not only bravely closing the umptieth Mozart RfC but even following through afterwards, for a clever April Fool and a section "Things to do when demotivated" - Madeline, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
great to meet you! - in response to the "invitation" to the Mozart RfC on Classical music, I wrote a little timeline of what has been styled as a war (in 2005) (and I thought it was over at least by 2018) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I find it absurd how heated people get over little rectangles with some words and numbers in them. Honestly, I didn't quite understand your ACE2022 questions either at the time; "infobox wars" seemed like a thing that would've happened way in the past; but the senseless hostility during and after what I thought to be a relatively straightforward RfC over an aesthetic choice showed me wrong. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me;09:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
check out Robert le diable, perhaps? - A user puts a "retired" tag on his user pages, and I am blamed and requested to change my actions that he called disgraceful: Where are we in 2023? When another of these users who are somewhat more superior left, a great arbitrator said that he is a big boy and his decision is his decision. - I see infoboxes with rounded corners, btw, thanks to Br'er Rabbit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
People are strange. That actually prompted me to make a userscript that removes infoboxes while preserving the images. These infobox disputes seem to mostly be about the readers (most of whom don't install userscripts), though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me;12:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I haven't seen a reader complain about the presence of an infobox yet. I added one to Robert le diable because it was on the Main page that day, and more readers than the selected few of normal days would see it. L'Africaine by the same composer has one, but we should serve the personal interests of a specific writer who likes it differently? I think the disputes are mostly about the writers, and that's what's wrong with them. I believe that we might begin to treat infoboxes like other content, and I'm not the first to think so. - You could offer your script to Smerus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I haven't seen a reader complain about the presence of an infobox yet. – I meant that the people opposing infoboxes likely do so because they think they're detrimental to readers' experiences at large, not just their own. Treating infoboxes "like other content" I definitely agree with. I've linked the script in the discussion above, where someone wondered if such existed. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me;13:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
seen, thank you, but only after this - I run my watchlist backwards ;) - the editors who find infoboxes detrimental to readers' experience possibly don't know what a script is, nor what tada means ;) - The best description of their attitude was quoted in Jenny Lind: an "eyesore in our beautifully crafted article", - I'm not making that up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Today, Johanna Geisler. - I just looked up - for the first time ever - contentious topic infoboxes. In a nutshell: I don't believe they are still contentious. Not the boxes, - the 2016 arbcase on which the CT designation was based was not about yes or no, but only civility. But not even civility: it has improved greatly. Could you tell the arbs, perhaps? Even I could, not having been a party in 2016. We should really get to normal editing in the field. Geisler sang a premiere by Korngold. The composer has an infobox since 2014, and nobody complained. Mozart: I think that not only were there many more voices supporting, - there was especially the voice of reason, Voceditenore, refuting all arguments on the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
ps: I'm concluding that CT information should not be given to users simply discussing infoboxes, only to users who seems in danger of not doing it in civility. What really made me smile is that the user who saddened me by the "Wehrmacht" edit - one of the authors of Messiah, to make it worse - gave a nice infobox to Geisler's husband. I keep hoping ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion any topic area where a seasoned editor will unabashedly invoke the Third Reich in reference to people who disagree with them ought to be a CT. With regards to alerts, it's a fine line between handing out too many and handing out too few. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me;11:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
Thank you! - I heard pleasant music today - did you know a string quartet with two cellos (and no article yet in English? - I nominated Soňa Červená for GA just to give her a bit more exposure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
not by the fact that there are transphobes on Wikipedia. But by how many are willing to at least partially excuse transphobia because they self-admittedly have a good relationship with the person in question, or because the editor has been around (being transphobic) for a long time. I also disappointed by how many people see trans people as a topic area, that think it is okay to be transphobic as long as you do it under a topic which is not about trans people. I am equally disappointed that there are respected editors here who believe that being transphobic and being against transphobia are equivalent.
I placed a wikibreak template on my user page hoping to take a step away and let things fold out and hopefully let myself heal. Then I cleaned up some promotion from an article. Just now I reverted someone for using unreliable sources. I am not taking a wikibreak, but I continue to claim so. The things I mentioned feel like a duty to me, and like second nature. But those are not why I edit, not anymore. I edit to work together with other, reasonable, experienced editors to make and keep articles that are accurate, balanced, and beautiful. But it is exactly this I am taking a wikibreak from. My sense of purpose here has met a crisis when so many of the people who may talk perfectly reasonably, some of whom I've even looked up to, without daring or probably even knowing to say it, see me and my community as second-rate people, and our protection as contingent. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)20:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Tim riley there seems to be mistaking his own opinion on how the article should look for a consensus, which in fact does seem to exist on the talk page. I am not convinced, however, that WP:CANVASSing would do better at convincing him. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)11:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It kind of defeats the point of getting an independent view if one of the sides chooses who provides the independent view ;-). Maybe it's starting to be WP:ANI or WP:AE time, but I don't feel like looking into that enough right now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)09:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I have not taken a good colleague to a noticeboard (this particular one invited me for Messiah, and we wrote Fauré's Requiem together), and don't plan to ever do it. - I still believe that you might be in an independent enough position to educate about what makes a consensus (regardless of which debate), but nevermind if you ca use your time more constructively elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see the wikibreak was so short. Your contributions to Wikipedia are widely appreciated. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Routine cleanup is something that comes to me almost instinctively at this point. I still need to reflect a lot over how I feel about so many editors, some of whom I respected very much, seemingly taking transphobia to be a topic area problem rather than bigotry unacceptable everywhere. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)08:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I first registered in 2013, and I've seen a lot of improvement since then. I see a lot more out Wikipedians than I did ten years ago. I watched from the sidelines during the Manning ArbCom case and saw editors get halfhearted slaps on the wrists for all sorts of transphobic nonsense, and I see editors getting immediate AE TBans for similar edits these days. Ten years ago, MOS:ID was a redlink and 100-kilobyte flame wars were fought over how to describe transgender individuals. On today's Wikipedia, edits that misgender trans people are reverted on sight, and the responsible editors given templated warnings. (Yes, I've used this one myself.) I'm hopeful that this community will continue to improve, but I understand that improvement sometimes just isn't enough. I'm a cishet dude, but I've experienced my own share of frustration with the culture here on Wikipedia, and it isn't hard for me to imagine that it'd be very difficult to find the motivation to edit here when you have to deal with the same bullshit here as you probably do IRL. I've seen the good work you do here and I'd like to see you continue doing it, but I can't fault you if you decide that it's just not worth it. Either way I hope you know that, while I'll never truly understand what you're dealing with, I'm sympathetic to your frustrations and I hope things get better. — SamX [talk·contribs] 02:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to play this old trope, because it doesn't sound sincere, but ... some of my friends are transgender and I have seen vile and abusive crap been thrown at them in a manner that makes me throw my hands up in despair and shout "you do realise this person you're throwing this at is an actual human being too, you know?" I've also seen the good work you do around here, and the commitment you have to the project, and I think you have more allies here than you might realise. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, maybe instead of collapsing it the way Yae4 did, if you want to collapse it, maybe collapse *just* the list of diffs, with a title like e.g. "List of diffs as evidence", or something like that. I could make such an edit myself, if you wish.Libreleah (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey Maddy. I've got a couple of changes I'd like to suggest to your uw-gender series of warning templates.
Recently we updated the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID to make it state that we should refer to a person by both the name and gendered words that reflect their most recent gender identity, instead of just gendered words. Could we update your templates to reflect that change?
Secondly, in uw-gender3, you've added [[:{{{1}}}]] so that Twinkle can pass in the relevant article title. Could we add that to uw-gender1, 2, and 4 as well, and then make it an optional parameter similar to how it works for the {{Uw-vandalism1}} series? If you don't know how, I'd be happy to make the change with your permission. I'd also be happy to add the polite Hello, I'm [username] to uw-gender1 at the same time, if you think it would improve the template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
And done! If you want to see them in action, I've just tested them on my own user talk page if you want to see what they look like. All four templates now allow Twinkle to pass through the relevant page name, as well as a optional extra message from the user issuing the warning.
Cool! I made one small tweak to it, to include the {{{2|}}} for the |extra= parameter, as that's what allows Twinkle to pass through the optional message when you're issuing the warning.
Sorry, I never saw your original post back in April.[1] Only just saw it because I was reviewing my last 5000 edits looking for an article that I cannot seem to find (it will turn up eventually), when I ran across your wonderful script. I only just tested it out.[2] Works great! I'm happy to see that you added it to Help:Infobox/user style, but I really hope someone like User:Smerus takes note of what you did and uses it. It's amazing that you did this. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276
(talk page stalker) No, when you're registered, nobody can see your IP adress. IP (and other data) of registered users can be seen only by wp:checkusers and only when doing checks. All checks are logged (without revealing data) and are done only with a valid reason. So, as registered user, you're pretty safe. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kristi Raik, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Panda Eriksson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hi Madeline! I was recently in the small Alaskan fishing village of Ninilchik and took a photo on my iPhone of a welcome sign outside the entrance of said village. The sign has a short description of the history and founders of Ninilchik, and I noticed that a photo of the sign was not on the village’s Wikipedia page. If it is no bother, I would appreciate some guidance as to whether I should upload the photo, where I should do so, as well as anything else that may help. I am new to editing Wikipedia and I am not an expert on this subject. I was unsure of how to upload the photo here for reference, so I would appreciate it if you could inform me on how to do that. I thank you immensely for your time and I again heavily appreciate your help. --Slamforeman (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Slamforeman! I apologize for the slight delay in my response; I have been busy elsewhere and didn't see this message. The place to upload an illustration for Wikipedia depends on its copyright status. In most cases, to use an image on Wikipedia, it either has to be in the public domain for one reason or another (usually because the author died a long time ago), or you have to have permission. In that case you should upload to Wikimedia Commons. The other case in which an image can be used here if it meets all of the non-free content criteria. In that case, it should be uploaded to the Engligh Wikipedia only, which you can do here.Now as for your photo of the welcome sign, you did take the photo, so you have permission and should be fine on that front. However, since you took a photo of the welcome sign, your photo is probably a derivative work thereof. This means you also have to consider the copyright status of the sign itself. This gets very messy very quickly. One simple case is that if it was put up by an agency of the US federal government, it's in the public domain. Else, most likely not. If the content of the sign is very trivial, you might be able to argue that it is too simple to attract copyright. Otherwise, you would probably need to get permission from the sign's author to upload your photo. Here is the procedure for that case. Finally, it probably wouldn't pass the non-free content criteria, as a photo of a welcome plaque is far from essential for an article about a town.If you have further copyright-related questions about a specific image, you can also ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Also, if you ever ask me a question here and don't get an answer after a few days, or otherwise want input from others than me, you can post at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)12:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I found this certain moss in the Northwoods of Wisconsin while hiking last week. The article doesn't state they would be anywhere near there. How do I edit the article to include this? --Rschubert9807 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Hey again Madeline! I’d appreciate your advice on something.
I was reading the Wikipedia article about Monica Witt, an American citizen and Air Force veteran who defected to Iran and is now a fugitive from justice.
I noticed that her photo in her “quick facts” was quite poor quality, being grainy and blurry. It also undated, with the metadata for the photo saying it could have been taken at any point of when she served in the Air Force. But, regardless, there is another problem with the photo I believe to be more important.
The photo of her is from her time in the military and prior to her conversion to Islam. I am not Muslim myself, but as far as I am aware, it considered disrespectful to show a Muslim woman not wearing a burka, outside of private spaces.
My question is if the photo should replaced or moved, with this photograph from the FBI website and the poster concerning her, taking it’s place. It is much higher quality, depicts her wearing a burka, and is more recent, which I think would help if she was ever spotted. I also believe it is not copyrighted, which also helps.
Again, I would appreciate any guidance you can offer here. Although she is certainly a bad person, I believe this would help with respectability. I considered asking this question in the Teahouse, but I held off for now, for fear of provoking Islamophobia.
@Slamforeman: According to the copyright notice linked from that page, any content is in the public domain unless otherwise noted, and I don't see anything to the contrary on that photo, so I think it's PD. Given that, there's no reason not to use a better and newer photo over an older and worse one. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)22:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
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)
I re-read your advice on how and whether to do so, and realized that it most likely fits the too simple for copyright criteria, as well as the other rules, and so I decided to upload it. Just thought I should say here. I thank you again for the suggestion and I hope you have been well. Slamforeman (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I feel I should add more context. Other welcome signs like this one or this one are under own work licenses with no issue, and they are much more complex. As for if it is notable enough to go up on the page for Ninilchik, I don’t think it has too, only that it would be good for it to go up on the commons. Kind regards, Slamforeman (talk) 16:13, 22 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!
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Trans broken arm syndrome, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, @JOLil2. Are you referring to this edit? You don't make a new article by just replacing the content in an existing one. Furthermore, it looks like you are trying to write an article about yourself. Read this for why that is a bad idea. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
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.
... to the cabal of the outcast - flowers and berries will be your only reqard ;) - did you see that my question to the arb cands departed from the Mozart RfC? - The November berries seem just perfect for the colours of your user name. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
My description of Special:Diff/542355419? A weird quasi-infobox that I assume nobody genuinely wanted there was turned into a normal infobox. I'm not sure what to think about your insinuation that this conflict will end with a cremation. P.S. Be it said I have just !voted for deleting an infobox. fight me about it ;3 -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The pic that I just love is by member of the outcast #2, banned. I was named an infobox warrior when I restored the preferred version weeks after an edit war, for a mass ;) - the lovely discussion is still on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
My start was in 2009, and I soon met great people such as Michael Bednarek and Jerome Kohl, and DYK that I didn't know about infobox conflicts until Samuel Barber, in 2012? I opposed for redundancy, and that discussion was more enjoyable, - I was immediately won for intended redundancy for readers with different needs by a remark that Barber is also a person, - it was worded more wittily, worth finding out ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse welcome
Dear Maddy from Celeste,
Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!
Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:
Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
Hi Maddy, hope you're doing well. I saw that you closed the Sommer Ray discussion for exclusion on both fronts, but would you be able to provide me with an explanation on why you closed both as consensus against? Most editors expressed trimmed down inclusion of Set B. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi @InvadingInvader! I count one (you) in favour of including both, two in favour of excluding both, one for conditionally including B, and one for either conditionally including B or excluding both. I read this as consensus for excluding both. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)17:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The !votes for excluding B both cite the reliability of the sources as a reason, while the one for conditional inclusion does not address the reliability issue, instead going for a WP:OSE-kind of argument. I think this moves it out of no consensus. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. To what extent did you take into account the additional publication from Glossy magazine provided in the discussion section? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I registered it, but did not consider it to have swayed the debate much given that neither of the editors who acknowledged it did not amend their !votes in response. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)18:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
As the proposer of the RFC on Israel article, I would like to begin by genuinely thanking you for the effort you put in the closing. You clearly took your time to read all the arguments and decide accordingly, which unfortunately is a rarity these days.
I saw in the closing message the words that there is "no consensus either for or against inclusion". I feel this has been considered as voting, which doesn't follow the consensus guideline: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
As you can see apart from the fact that users of a particular viewpoint have been canvassed, they did not base their arguments on Wikipedia policy, as you well-articulated in your closing.
Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
I feel there has been no good counterarguments given to the main argument that the lede summarizes the body per MOS guideline; since we do have a section on apartheid in the article.
Hi, Makeandtoss. Thank you for your message. Closing this rfc, I considered these points quite thoroughly, in my mind. Had I treated the rfc as a vote, I would have closed it as a clear consensus against inclusion, but that is not what happened. I took the concerns about canvassing seriously, and asked at WP:DFD for advice on how to take that into account. While reading the discussion, I paid particular attention to the policy basis of the comments, and discounted many opposes on that basis – seven, if I remember correctly. I further checked for WP:SPAs and such, but the extended-confirmed restriction proved good at weeding those out beforehand.At this point, I did actually initially lean towards closing with consensus for inclusion, because I did feel that the support arguments were still stronger than the remaining opposes. However, since that would have been a close very strongly against the numbers, I reread WP:NHC to ascertain myself, wherein is contained an instruction to not let one's own ideas of which policies are relevant determine the outcome. I pondered over this for a while, and concluded that while I disagreed with the oppose arguments, they were not in plain contradiction with policy or otherwise irrelevant. As a closer, I ought not to rule on which of several interpretations on how policy should be applied in any given case is the most correct. I allude to this in my closing statement: All considered, after discounting clearly irrelevant comments, there was a rather even split of voices for and against inclusion, and on the policy-merits, neither can be said to have been so unambiguously right or wrong to declare a consensus here.TL;DR: I agree that in my view the support side had better arguments, but it would have been a supervote to close that way. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)15:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The numbers wouldn’t have been a problem considering canvassing that took place. Also even without canvassing, the NHC policy you cited gives you the mandate to decide based on the result of the debate: “The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant”. Also considering that super vote is an essay not a policy. In short, deciding for inclusion would have been considered as you having been convinced by the pro-addition arguments, rather than having a pro-addition stance yourself. I’m hoping for your kind reconsideration, as it would not only give back the lede its proper role that of body summary (since they clearly objected to any mention of apartheid and not its phrasing; which is against manual of style), but also dissuade online groups from making these counterconstructive canvassing disruptive behaviors. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding canvassing, I made sure to close very carefully due to that, but as a closer, there's not a magic tool against canvassing; I can't just subtract, say, 5 votes from one side because I suspect canvassing. I remain convinced that closing as no consensus was the right choice: I used my knowledge of policy to exclude irrelevant arguments, and after doing that, there was no consensus either way. You are welcome to post to WP:AN to challenge this closure, in which case uninvolved editors will judge whether I closed correctly. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please reverse this edit, for further consideration. OK, as a major contributor to the article I should have been aware of the move request - but, I wasn't, I've been busy, and as a general point it has been moved on the basis of a very small number of !votes (2 to 1) after a short (one week) opportunity for discussion. The article does not, never has, and never should, cover the "History of rock and roll". That raises all sorts of issues about the term itself, and the period to be covered - it could extend until the present day, and into the future. No, the article is very specifically about the Origins of the genre as it emerged in the 1950s, and the previous decades. The article is most definitely not about its later history, since the 1950s. The title "History of rock and roll" is quite simply wrong or at best highly misleading, and I would like that opinion to be expressed on the article talk page before any final decision is taken. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 6 December 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgenderism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Just a side comment, I will do discussion on her Article rather than here.
Sophie did superb work. I want her achievements to be genuinely recognized. Doing WP:OR will make her actual work suspect. That can be counter-productive. BlueWren0123 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed your closure of a discussion I participated in. I'm not personally big on the idea of closing discussions, but WP guidance and policy obviously matters more than my preference! I looked up what I could (I've never been a highly active editor, so I don't know all the nooks and crannies of this place).
Anyway I didn't find anything about closing a discussion because of the topic. You cited WP:FRINGE but I suspect that applies more to articles.
In WP:CLOSE there is the guidance that "most conversations do not need to be closed."
Reasons for closure include when the discussion is stable, with the caution: "The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take." The discussion you closed is certainly a contentious subject, and of course stability was not the reason you cited.
The essay WP:ACD advises making this decision only on matters on which one can truly be impartial. Your own user page shows a high level of advocacy on topics related to the closure.
Your perspective is valuable here, and you appear to be an accomplished contributor. You must know very well what makes Wikipedia great and what threatens this greatness, so I respectfully request that you consider taking a more cautious approach to discussion closure.
Hi. My closing there was based on WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, which advises to collapse nonpertinent sections. Speaking from experience, these kinds of posts tend to attract irrelevant WP:SOAPBOXing about personal opinions. Obviously I have nothing against you starting a new section to propose concrete, reasoned changes to the article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)20:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article Cisnormativity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cisnormativity for comments about the article, and Talk:Cisnormativity/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FenrisAureus -- FenrisAureus (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Nat! Some pages may be protected, which may prevent you from editing them directly, but otherwise I'm not aware of any "limits" to editing articles. Is there some specific kind of limit you're thinking of? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. I've often wondered why some pages on Wikipedia are protected. Could you help me understand the specific restrictions or constraints that lead to the protection of certain pages? I'm curious to learn more about the reasons behind this practice. Thanks again! Best, Natalie (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
On 20 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transition (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the documentary Transition, Jordan Bryon says he finds Taliban fighters "lovely"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transition (film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Transition (film)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Maddy
I was an Ear, Nose and Throat physician until the age of 70 when I explored entering the movie production industry and now have been the executive producer of three films. One is now streaming on Showtime, The Movie Channel and Paramount Plus.
I am proud to state that my advanced age was not a deterrent to my successful new career. I even had a speaking role opposite Brandon Routh (Superman) in our last film; The Redeemer.
I think this might give hope and motivation to other retired follks.
However, I am not certain how to put this together.
May I draft a document and email it to for friendly advice?
Thanks so much.
Steve Schrager, MD --Executive Producer Steve (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
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.
Hello Maddy, How do I create a page for myself on Wikipedia? I will be 80 this year and I am about to publish my first book this coming summer. I have lots of others previously written that will be published as quickly as possible and I hope to leave a detailed account of my works after I am gone. --Robert Anthony Carswell (talk) 09:10, 21 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
I want to edit a page for a game which I have, however, the sites where I can find citations are restricted for me. Is it possible to expand the article, and then have it missing citations, where someone else can cite it? --Fixthatonething (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
As the original registry for the Nigerian Dwarf and San Clemente Island Goat in USA and Canada, I would like to add some history. How do I do this and also list my registry as a source?
A wikipedia page on the person of interest and honor that I want to write about is already in German. Do I add to that page or create my own. This artist deserves a page in English as the artist created and lived in the United States, although traveled with a jazz musical group. --JDShutman (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @JDShutman. You can do either, or both, as you please. Do note that the requirements for a subject to qualify for an article, known amongst wikipedians as notability, is different between the English and German Wikipedias. I would recommend you to read the page Help:Your first article, if you wish to create an article about this person in the English Wikipedia. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I've been copyediting a few articles, and am trying to work on removing promotional content. Is there any way to find articles marked as biased, so they can be objectivized?
(I'm new to Wikipedia, if that incorporates) --Fixthatonething (talk) 03:55, 26 February 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.
Greetings Mentor Maddy,
Please I need your support to help review, edit and publish an article written by my daddy on the history or origin of our quarter in town Ezi. He requested that I help publish. I really don't know how to go about it.
Would you mind providing your mobile phone number so we can discuss it.
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
I personally happen to agree with both the argument to move in the original RM and with the overturn side in the MRV. However, the discussion did not result in a consensus to overturn. Points that particularly influenced my close were the balance of !votes among uninvolved editors, and the in my opinion irrelevant arguments invoking the closer's non-admin status from the overturn side. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)07:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate why you think it's irrelevant? The arguments cited WP:BADNAC: 2. "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe the purpose of Wikipedia:Move review is to discuss closures, not closers. That essay's suggestion may be useful to avoid bad closures being made, but saying a closure should be overturned because it was too contentius for a non-admin closure is, on its own, a not a strong argument. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Even if it weren't a strong argument, it was still stronger than the arguments that supported the closure as they did not cite any guideline or essay in their reasoning, having actually barely elaborated on their responses beyond "endorse". Would you consider at least extending the discussion on the move review page? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A little relevant argumentation is better than lots of irrelevant argumentation, and I do not agree that all "endorse" !votes barely elaborated on their responses. I do not think reöpening would be beneficial considering that I closed it a whole week after the last !vote. My overall impression remains that no consensus was achieved during the discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mentor :-*
Just finding my feet again here... if you have any time to have a look at my edits/contributions so far and let me know if I'm doing anything particularly heinous i would appreciate it! Equally if you have some tedious/repetitive tasks linked to your goals here which are suitably n00bish then I'm happy to try and help :) Bazzabloodybenson (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back, Bazzabloodybenson! I had a look as you asked me to. I think you are doing great so far! Two notes:
You use Bare URLs when citing sources. Click that link to find out what that means and to see how to make prettier footnotes :)
Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your edit at Early Islam, though a small edit, seems to indicates your likely understanding of availability of sources on this topic.
Requesting your visit to Tashabbuh (still a draft in my userspace) and help expand the topic areas if you find topic interesting. Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing.
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Hello, Maddy from Celeste. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Who's Afraid of Gender?, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Orphaned non-free image File:Labour Campaign for Trans Rights logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Labour Campaign for Trans Rights logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Question from Anna M Kelsoe (09:53, 23 September 2024)
Hi I was looking to write article on the Michael Jackson Pepsi accident, there are no articles over this topic but it is mentioned on his page. --Anna M Kelsoe (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello Maddy,
I need some help with a new article of mine. i created 2 article and both of them were declined due to lack of sources, so this time i want your help to see if the current article meets all the Guidelines then i will submit it for review. let me know if this is possible.
thank you --Gj2020 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gj2020: I'll look at Draft:Study Table first. Chances are, once you've got your first article accepted, you will understand how to write more. Firstly I'll have to say I disagree with the reviewer on it being a WP:DICDEF (a dictionary definition for those who aren't fluent in Wikipedianese), as you do go to some depth beyond what a normal dictionary would. Anyway, that's not the main point here, but notability is (read that guideline carefully many times if you want to write articles!). The gist of it is, you need to show there's some existing literature on which you can base an article on study tables.You currently have several sources that specifically discuss study tables, that's good! However, they seem to be random educational websites and lecture slides. That's not bad per se, but I think it would strengthen the article to have some academic sources – journal articles or books. Presumably those exist, since that's likely what the sources you have now are based on – check if they cite their sources. Are you studying this subject at school or university? In that case you could ask your teacher. Also if you attend school or university, it's likely that you can get access to some databases (for example, JSTOR, if you've heard of that) to search for academic sources. Ask your librarian about it. If not, I can also use some of the resources I can access through The Wikipedia Library so try to find your some sources. (If you stick around and edit for long enough, you too can get access to it; it's a great resource!)You should also consider cutting some of the more redundant material. If I was to review this article and it started by telling me that tables have legs and a tabletop, I too would question whether that really is a necessary article. Focus on what our readers don't already know. This can also be connected to my previous point, as academic sources are likely to consider deeper aspects of the topic.I hope that helps. Reply to me if anything I said needs clarification, you have more questions, or you have trouble finding sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
P.S. It's not formally a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but these days it's an unwritten norm to have inline citations (footnotes) everywhere – I'd suggest at least one per paragraph. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your help once again. I'm currently reviewing Wikipedia's notability guidelines as you said and trying to determine if the subject "study table" qualifies for a stand alone article. The guidelines says, "if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find sufficient independent, reliable sources most of the available sources are product websites, which don't meet the notability criteria. So I'm not sure if I should continue working on the article or not. Gj2020 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gj2020: I'd wager that study tables, as a very common piece of furniture, are notable enough for an article. The problem most likely lies in finding the sources needed. A general-purpose search engine is often not the best place to look for sources on many topics, precisely because you will find a lot of product websites and so on. There exist specialized search engines that are better for searching for sources. Most require paid subscriptions, but Semantic Scholar is free to use, you can try that.I've used some tools available for me to find a couple of possible sources. If you can't find the full text to these, email me and I'll send it to you. You can also look in the references of these and other sources you find, to look for more topical sources.
Yanfeng Miao, Shuqi Yan, Wei Xu. The Study of Children’s Preferences for the Design Elements of Learning Desks Based on AHP-QCA. BioResources [Internet]. 2024 Apr [cited 2024 Oct 8];19(2):2045–66
Zaugg H, Belliston CJ. Assessing old and new individual study desks. Performance Measurement & Metrics [Internet]. 2020 May [cited 2024 Oct 8];21(2):93–106
Thanks for the recommendation on Semantic Scholar it was really helpful! Also, I appreciate the two sources you provided. I improved the article, but I did my own research again and didn’t find anything useful. Please check it when you have time. Gj2020 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for you. Consider leaving the draft be for now, and adding to Desk § Student models first. When you are new to Wikipedia, it's better to start out by editing existing articles for a while; it gives you a kind of intuition for how an article should look. Then writing articles will be easier afterwards. When writing, start with a few of the highest-quality sources you can find. This usually means books, journals, etc. Maybe newspapers, depending on the topic. Read those thoroughly and summarize them. Then, look for more similar sources, through their references (source list at the end of academic publications), or by other means, and repeat. Did you get access to "Assessing old and new individual study desks"? If not, e-mail me. Its references look very promising for your research. Also, it introduces two key terms, carrel and indivisual study desk, both referring to a kind of study desk, which should be useful in finding more information. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)19:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see it like that. Firstly, the contentious topics designation obviously has no impact on the determination of consensus in discussions. Secondly, the lively discussion had come to an end, with your interlocutor saying: I'm probably not going to respond to this any further as this conversation does not seem to be productive at all; and you digressing about linguistics. It is also not quite right to say there was only one editor in support of the move; Relmcheatham, who opened the discussion, obviously also wanted to move the article, and AmphibiousThing2 also provided arguments in favour of moving. In my opinion, this numerical majority, in addition to an evaluation of the arguments based on policy and sources cited, shows a consensus to move. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)16:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
When a topic is contentious, I think it does matter, and two editors in favor, and a hundred editors not having seen the discussion nor taken part in it, what is their opinion about it? In my opinion, it is highly premature to conclude that two editors here constitutes a consensus about a contentious, GENDERID-related move to overturn an eighteen-year stable consensus. What's the rush? There is no deadline. At a minimum, it should have been relisted for further input. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion ran for the standard seven days. There is no provision to alter that depending on the topic of the article in question. At the end of the seven days, productive discussion had terminated, and a consensus was apparent – thus, no reason for relisting. If that's all you have on this, I don't think I will change my mind, but I have nothing against being proven wrong at WP:MRV. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)09:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Just Wanted to know something i recently created a new article. I created (Taj Aravali Resort & Spa) in Draft then Moved it to Mainspace by myself. and now bit confused if i took the right step or not. can you tell me know if newcomers can move the article or not?
thank you --Gj2020 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
You are allowed to move it, but it may still be best to ask for some outside input with your first few articles. This can be through submitting it for AfC, or you could ask on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. I had a quick look at the sources on your article, and I'm a little concerned most of them are not truly independent of the resort, but rather just republishing press releases or even straight up publishing advertizing for the resort without marking it as such. I'd try to find more sources where it looks like the reporter has done their own research on the place, rather than just repeating what the owners say. Note that commercial enterprises like this must meet the somewhat stricter notability criteria of WP:NCORP. At this point, you're under no obligation to move the article back to draftspace; you can just as well improve it where it is now. In any case, a new article reviewer will look at it soon, and may either approve it (possibly with suggested improvements), make it a draft again, or propose it be deleted. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)20:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Understood. I will read WP:NCORP now. and stick to the AfC Submition.
Hi, your close found no consensus for the proposed move. While the votes in this case were evenly split, a no consensus finding would indicate you found that the arguments made to support or oppose were equally strong. Could you please expand on how you assessed the strength of the arguments. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLEFORMAT are both valid considerations when choosing an article title. In fact, TITLEFORMAT says it is "used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles"; consistency is one of those five principles. In such a case, I as a closer cannot myself decide which consideration is more important, and I don't think the numbers were decisive enough either. In addition, editors disagreed on whether the most commonly recognizable form is capitalized or not. Again, I do not think either side won enough support over the other to declare a consensus. My suggestion here is, as stated in the close, to examine the other revival style articles and their sources. If many of them really should be lowercased, consistency would not weigh much in the evaluation anymore. Conversely, if most of those are correctly capitalized, maybe it's fine that Rococo Revival also is. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)10:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Maddy. You would consider that WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLEFORMAT are both valid considerations when determining the capitalisation to be applied to a particular article title (as opposed to the wording). Per WP:RMCIDC: Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. Per WP:NHC: The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. It also refers to reasonable arguments.
The meaning of WP:CONSISTENT is not contained in the word consistent (as argued) but in the explanation therein (both directly and through supporting documentation invoked therein) and the fuller context of WP:AT. WP:CRITERIA states: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.). Topic-specific naming conventions are listed in the sidebar at WP:AT. The section Consistency further directs to WP:TITLECON, which explains that it refers to documented topic-specific conventions on article titles. This fits back into WP:CRITERIA. WP:NCCAPS is a naming convention linked from WP:LOWERCASE (at WP:AT). In turn, it invokes MOS:CAPS. While the Nom (and others) did not specifically refer to the link from WP:AT to MOS:CAPS, a person reasonably familiar with the prevailing P&G should be aware of this.
You correctly observe WP:TITLEFORMAT states: The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles [emphasis added]. This is telling us that the points therein (including WP:LOWERCASE) are requirements over and above the five criteria and have precedence over the criteria. Considering the P&G in full, there is no reasonable inconsistency, contradiction or exception that would cause WP:CONSISTENT to have any precedence over WP:LOWERCASE on a matter of capitalisation.This RM also attempted to use the WP:CONSISTENT argument and might be enlightening. Where we have a multi RM for capitalisation, the evidence is considered on the individual merits (see here). As seen in the link discussion, some articles in a multi RM may be moved while others are not - depending on the individual merits. It is the role of the closer to determine whether an argument is reasonable and discard those which are not - such as a fallacious pettifogging misrepresentation of the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I cannot agree with you that your reading of the policy on consistency is the only correct one. As you quote, the consistency criterion per se is: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. It is further explained that many such patterns may be found in topic-specific naming conventions. This explicitly does not imply that consistency is only an argument where there exists a topic-specific naming convention. § Consistency does indeed directs to WP:TITLECON, but you are omitting crucial context: it directs to TITLECON [f]or examples of Wikipedia practices regarding consistency in article titles. Neither WP:NCCAPS nor MOS:CAPS offers specific guidance on artistic periods or movements, and SMcCandlish correctly notes that these often are capitalized.As for the scope of TITLEFORMAT, I am quite certain you've got it backwards. [O]n questions not covered by the five principles situates that section in a subsidiary position to the main criteria: the five criteria are applied first, and then, if any questions remain unanswered by a throrough analysis of them, TITLEFORMAT is applied. In this case, according to those who favoured capitalization, the capitalization question is answered by consistency, and therefore LOWERCASE never appears in the evaluation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:TITLEFORMAT is telling us about things we should or should not do even though a proposed title determined by applying WP:CRITERIA might initially suggest otherwise - ie we don't use the or the plural form (etc) except in specific circumstances as detailed therein. TITLEFORMAT is saying, make sure your proposed title complies with this guidance. TITLEFORMAT is taking precedence over CRITERIA. That is the spirit and intent of the policy at WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Editors should not have to invoke an adverarial process that sucks up a lot of time of a lot of editors (and the core point of which is documenting, and creating a record of, closer error), when a closer on uncertain ground can simply undo their questionable close and let someone else with a clearer understanding of policy deal with it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENT (and all the rest of WP:AT) has nothing to do with style matters, which is controlled by WP:MOS and pages thereof (plus naming conventions guidelines derived from them, like WP:NCCAPS). This includes capitalization, which at Wikipedia is only used when, for a specific subject, when that capitalizations is found consistently in a substantial majority (like 90%+) of independent reliable soruces. AT is the policy that helps us choose from between entirely different (regardless of any style question) names for the same subject, like David Johansen and Buster Poindexter (and also how to disambiguate when necessary, with a preference for natural English over parenthetical or other punctuated approaches).
AT has nothing at all to do with how to capitalize or otherwise stylize the article title after it has been selected; otherwise, it would be literally impossible for the naming conventions guidelines to even exist, or for MOS to ever have any effect on RM discussions, but of course NC and MOS are key or entirely determining factors in RM decisions every single day and always have been for 20+ years. WP:AT and the WP:NC* guidelines explicitly defer to MOS on style matters dozens of times. As in virtually all capitalization RMs, there is only one question before us, period: is this term almost uniformly capitalized in independent RS? If not, then use lower case, always.
On capitalization, Wikipedia does not force an artificial "consistency" to suit editors' whims in defiance of reliable sourcing. This is not at all the sort of consistency that is meant by WP:CONSISTENT, and this is clear from actually just bothering to read WP:AT instead of making assumptions about what it might mean from strings used in sometimes unhelpful shortcuts. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I remembered the Yasuke RFC was a mess and went to see who closed it out of morbid curiosity. Honestly, congrats for calling it the mess it was and for still being able to summarize some threads despite the absolute trainwreck of an RFC Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh no! Anyways... I do like the pivot they do from neutrally describing the discussion to suddenly only quote a bunch of pro-"hamas-controlled" editors and commentators. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I also feel it was pretty straightforward, as I mentioned at ANRFC. However, the close is the culmination of an 8 month-long process, which certainly warrants praise. Sincerely, Dilettante15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
As someone who, personally, does not like the way it turned out, I nonetheless think you made a good close, and I thank you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
+1, really well written closing statement, of a complex discussion, it must have taken a while to read everything, thank you for putting in the time. Levivich (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Admin recall
Hi Maddy. Thanks for tackling that messy RfC. I'm a bit confused about one point of your close though: your conclusion that the page should immediately be marked as a policy (which I see you've already done). The RfC didn't ask if it should be a policy, it just asked if it there was consensus. We don't usually describe processes as policies or guidelines. For example, WP:RFA is not a policy. I'm worried that the policy tag will make it harder to resolve ambiguities through normal editing as you also recommended. Could you perhaps reconsider this part? – Joe (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I'm currently constrained to editing on my phone, making reading lots of PAG difficult, and will be going to sleep soon, so I'd encourage you to take this up at the recall talk page. My immediate thoughts on this are that this specific procedure went through very extensive dicussion, and the specifics of how it happens were considered very important, thus not "just procedure". As for your example, WP:RFA itself is not a policy page, but the basics of the process are defined at WP:ADMIN. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)20:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the distinction lies not in policy or procedure, but policy basis versus implementation details. At one extreme, consider page moves. We have a policy basis that editors may move pages if there is a consensus and it fits with the title policy etc., and WP:RM is just a "btw this is how we organize this". On the other hand, with admin recall I think to the community, how it is done is just as important as whether it is done. "The community can desysop if there is a consensus" would be a terrible policy and would not reflect consensus. See also WP:CUOS which is a policy and describes the procedures for granting and removal of advanced permissions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
None of that changes the fact that the question posed in the RfC did not use the word "policy". Usually when we upgrade to a policy it is via an RfC that explicitly asks "should we make this a policy"? Reading your closing statement again, it seems you mistook this discussion as a change to an existing policy (On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes [...] this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment and therefore perhaps missed the fact that we do have a set process for proposing new policies, which this did not follow. – Joe (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll respond briefly, but given the significant developments these last two days, I do not feel comfortable making any unilateral changes at this point, and would request you to take this up for a community discussion at an appropriate venue.
You're right about WP:PROPOSAL existing. I did read that in the process of closing, but for some reason (I probably forgot) did not comment on that in the closure.
Still, that section also does not lay down mandatory formalities for policy adoption, in the way that for example Wiktionary has them. It describes how policies are commonly adopted, but that does not mean that another process with a similar level of consensus cannot also result in policy; hence the RfC. Thus, I don't think that really changes the essential parts of my closure. Also, I see policy as a unitary body divided into pages for practical reasons, not a collection of individual, cleanly separable "policies", so policy change and policy adoption are two sides of the same coin.
The RfC question was: Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review?Having administrator recall implies a new policy for that. Again, policy is not a sacred word that must specifically be voted in. It is often said that policy follows practice, so by establishing consensus for a new practice, policy is created regardless of the words used.
You are aware that the word policy has a specific definition on this project, yes? Having consensus for something does not make it a policy. As I already mentioned, the majority of processes (WP:RFA, WP:AFD, etc.) are not policies even they obviously have a vastly higher level of consensus behind them than the new admin recall procedure. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring what another person is saying is great when you want to make them look stupid to an audience. Not so great when trying to convince them. You're right – I could amend my closure. I will not, however, at this time, because (a) I don't want to, and (b) I think a broader discussion is needed. Passing the buck to AN is exactly what is to be done in this situation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Noting that Joe Roe removed the policy tag from the page, and I have readded it. If I have missed a discussion elsewhere about it (e.g. a close challenge at AN or Maddy amending the close somewhere), please point me to it. Otherwise I think the process is to talk it out here, and if that's unsatisfactory, to get community review at WP:AN. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janicke Askevold until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Aravalli Range while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
.jpg)
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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Challenge to non-admin closure of RfC at BLP article Victor Salva. Thank you. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:Transgender history in Finland for comments about the article, and Talk:Transgender history in Finland/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § Complementary preferences. I pinged you for feedback on the proposed guideline update re. complementary preferences; I suppose it slipped through the cracks during this extensive discussion. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Bureaucrat changes
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_2023-10-01_Mattes.jpg#mw-jump-to-license){kind=link}
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
