User talk:City of Silver

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Congratulations on ranking among the top five most active pending changes reviewers during the previous 30 days. Fantastic work. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:REMOVED

Regarding this, per WP:REMOVED they are entirely permitted to remove such notices from their talk page; their block is recorded in the block log, so the notice itself is purely for their benefit and removing it is acknowledgement that they have read it. They may not remove Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block. but the notice of the block itself is not something that needs to remain on their talk page. This edit summary ending in cHeErS, the alternate capitalization of which is typically used online to mock someone else, is neither helpful nor constructive. An editor being blocked for incivility is not carte blanche to taunt them with incivility in kind. - Aoidh (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I said, in an edit summary that you've read, that my change was per IAR so nothing you've said here applies to me. Doesn't IAR mean that I'm required to violate policies in situations where I sincerely believe complying with them will do harm? CityOfSilver 00:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring to reinsert a WP:REMOVED talk page message multiple times is disruption, and there is no part of WP:IAR that supports your behavior on that editor's talk page. If you believe that IAR required you to edit war with uncivil edit summaries then please take this as a warning: your disruptive behavior on that talk page is going to lead to a block if you continue. WP:IAR does not allow for such disruptive behavior. Doesn't IAR mean that I'm required to violate policies in situations where I sincerely believe complying with them will do harm? I'm curious what harm you believe is being done to Wikipedia by an editor removing a block message on their own talk page, something that happens on user talk pages every single day. Do you believe that removing the notice hides the fact that they were blocked? It does not. No harm is being done, and your edit warring is not preventing anything. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As for this edit summary I very seriously hope you're not suggesting that mocking another Wikipedia editor is somehow beneficial to Wikipedia or that IAR permits such things. - Aoidh (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I said what I said, you said what you said, neither of us is convincing the other of much of anything, and you're an admin threatening to block me so I won't keep trying. One question, a simple yes-or-no, and no matter what I'm going to stop: do you believe me when I say I made these edits out of a sincere effort to protect the site from harm? I'm not asking if you agree with me that the edits protected the site from harm. I know you don't. I'm asking if you think I'm lying. CityOfSilver 00:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a warning that your incivility, disruptive behavior, and edit warring to ignore WP:REMOVED is inappropriate. Your sincerity was neither in question nor relevant to the issue; being sincere does preclude disruption. IAR is valid in many circumstances, but this is not one of them. That is not a difference of opinion or a I said what I said, you said what you said matter. The fact that you did not answer the question of how your edits on that talk page supposedly improved Wikipedia does not go unnoticed. Also to be clear, I am not threatening you, I am warning you about would occur should that disruption continue, in the hopes that the warning will be heeded and that nothing further comes of this. If you feel that I am mistaken or have erred in some way you are more than welcome to ask for a second opinion on this matter, though I will note that I am not the first editor to point out this issue with your edits on that editor's user talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Also regarding this edit summary that says Even this is enough to get me blocked isn't it I want to stress that I am not going to block you for disagreeing with me on your talk page, or for challenging what I am saying. Even if I don't agree with your explanation, I'm not going to block you for giving one; administrators on Wikipedia are not that petty. I'm writing to you out of a genuine concern of a problem that I see, with the sole hope of seeing that problem ended. Blocking you for an explanation on your talk page would solve no problem, but if you continued to edit war or continue with the incivility on that editor's talk page, that would be a problem. IAR does not permit ignoring WP:REMOVED in this circumstance and mocking a blocked editor in an edit summary is not civil. Those are the only two issues I'm concerned about. - Aoidh (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I don't know if there was an edit conflict somewhere but I replied having entirely missed your second message, which still somehow didn't cross my line of sight until well after you left it. "IAR is valid in many circumstances, but this is not one of them." I cannot square this with the "A" part of "IAR" because I interpret that to mean no exceptions. If there are circumstances where IAR isn't valid, how do I know what they are?

But maybe it's my fault! IAR, as written, doesn't require anyone who invokes it to explain themself but I honestly believe it should. I would never deliberately break policy without being able to say why I did what I did.

So here goes. The "cHeErS" thing and the re-revert were done in good faith and I still maintain all of it is compliant with policy. The user's edit summary reverting me contains a claim ("my page my rules") that, even if they didn't know it was wrong, was still obviously a snotty, immature thing to say. Next to that is a snide little kiss-off ("Cheers"). I responded with a better insult and a re-revert to try to get across to them that their nastiness towards me had no effect whatsoever so they might as well stop being like that. The benefit I hope to reap from this is that going forward, they'll skip this childish approach and treat people on here with civility instead. It was all a concerted, proactive effort to protect the site from the harm it suffers from a user who treats members of its community badly. The best-case scenario is that this user reflects and returns with a kind attitude they wouldn't have had if I hadn't gone in on them. I'm fully aware of how pie-in-the-sky that is but it's not impossible. (Really! Because hey: when they undid me a second time, they didn't type an insult or an attack or anything at all into the edit summary box. Progress?) And if that happens, every bit of this will have been worth it and it'll be a textbook case of IAR working exactly like it's supposed to. It's frustrating typing this out because while I know it's the truth, I also don't know if you'll believe it. CityOfSilver 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

Thanks for trying to tone down the language about Magnus's endgame play. But let me make a couple of suggestions:

• The Magnus Carlsen#Playing style section is the normal place for appraisals of his play with citations of sources. Only the briefest summaries of these appraisals belong in the lead paragraphs.
• Rather than "often cited", "sometimes cited" would be more appropriate.

Since it's Wikipedia, I could jump in and try to make the above corrections myself, but it might turn out better if you did it. Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Thank you for this note! That text was mostly added by an anonymous user here; I only reviewed it via pending changes and fixed it as best as I could. I'll tell you, it was as close as it gets: I strongly leaned towards just reverting the whole thing (in my edit summary I said "if there's good reason to revert that's fine") but I decided that, since the addition was mostly written, formatted, and sourced well, it was a keeper. I even considered that the sourcing was excessive but I figured since the lead already had seven cites, this overload problem wasn't going to get solved by undoing that edit.

On the content I concluded that, if Carlsen's endgame talent is great among the all-time greats, it should have some sort of mention at the top. For example, the lead section in our Babe Ruth article absolutely must mention his ability, unique even among baseball's greatest players, to hit lots of home runs. But let me also say, you know a lot more about this than I do so I'd defer to you.

You're the expert, at least compared to me, so if I did this edit, it would just be me trying my best to do exactly what I think you want done there. Me doing my best Bruce leverett impression, if you will. But if you'd still want me to do this work, let me know and I'd be happy to give it a shot. CityOfSilver 03:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: :@CityOfSilver: Hey there, I'm the originator of the addition to the Magnus Carlsen page. As it represents my most substantial contribution to Wikipedia in over a decade I find myself invested in its fate, and I've created an account ex post facto to inquire into it further. (This is my first-ever behind-the-scenes editorial discussion, by the way, so I apologize if I'm doing it slightly wrong and would welcome correction!)

As a qualifier, I want to stress that I agree almost entirely with CityOfSilver's reduction of opinionated colour—what he called, aptly I think, an "overly familiar, praising tone"—from the sentence I added to the lead paragraph of the article. Most of the time and effort I expended went toward gathering appropriate sources and deploying the markup language correctly, anyway. I'll feel flattered if even just a portion of my efforts can remain on the page. I'm happy to defer to experienced users in all aspects of this. I did have minor objections to the criticisms that were put to the tone and appropriateness of what I added, but reflection changed most of those into general curiosity about the guidelines.

Furthermore, I appreciate the work you all do tamping down partiality, and especially commercial promotion, from encyclopedia articles, which is obviously no place for such things. I'm sure it's a full-time job invigilating against all stripes of fanboys and -girls—from every domain of celebrity culture but especially stuff related to sports and competition—turning wikipedia entries into ugly hitpieces and breathless dick-riding contests. Magnus Carlsen gets plenty of the latter, especially: perhaps your previous encounters with it made what I added read more like that than I realized?

I do want to say that I'm still slightly surprised by the degree to which my original edit was faulted—that the language was so excessive that the task of "toning it down" can only be attempted, and that CityOfSilver came "as close as it gets" to rejecting it entirely. As I said, I agree with the spirit of neutrality, but surely, now, neutrality has been achieved here?

I'd also like to submit that as someone who's followed competitive chess pretty obsessively for about eight years, I've spent about eight years hearing commentators highlight Magnus Carlsen's endgame as the distinctive quality of his competitive dominance. Granted I don't have a FIDE rating of 2150 like Bruce Leverett. I'm basically a patzer (chesscom elo of 1500, lichess 1700). But like any daily consumer of chess content I'm aware that the discourse is chock full of expert appraisals of Magnus's singularly impressive endgame, his ability to "squeeze water from stone" and so on. Most of these claims are made by grandmasters in live commentary and video lectures, but I knew better than to cite three videos to justify the inclusion of this detail.

My original edit did cite one video, which I included at the end of the excised subordinate clause that mentioned Carlsen's own acknowledgement of the idea that he's "the greatest endgame player of all time." My main intention here was to illustrate how widespread the idea is: it's so common that Carlsen himself once casually interpellated it is a half-ironic joke. I understand, though, that video citation might be simply beyond the pale for a lead section, and perhaps should be kept out of Wikipedia articles in general as a matter of policy. Is that the case? I read the guidelines on linking to YouTube and I've accepted that my subordinate clause and the video citation supporting it may not have a place here for that reason. (One may ask, however, whether it's so wrong to offer to be an unobtrusive square-bracketed number in superscript linking to audio-visual document of the historical subject in question speaking about claims circulating about him.)

In the name of conceptual completeness, I maintain that it makes sense to offer a sentence or two about Carlsen's endgames in the article's last lead paragraph: the topic sentence there mentions that Carlsen's style of play underwent an (in fact rather typical) progression from aggressive-tactical (middlegame brilliance) to universalism. Shouldn't the rest of the paragraph then deliver information pertaining to his openings, middlegame, and endgame, each of the three phases of the game, i.e. his universality?

On the other hand—and I think Bruce Leverett would have to agree here—that if there's a part of this paragraph that doesn't belong it would have to be the quote about the middlegame: it's a dated statement about what Carlsen said he likes personally but it's not a critical consensus like the one that exists for his openings and endgame. And isn't it a trivial task to name at least 10 active players who play with a style of aggressive complication to a far greater extent than Carlsen, who's clearly more of a style of conservative mass liquidation to virtually drawn endgames that somehow he goes on to win?

Sorry for how bloated this post. I got a little too into the talk! Rockermanmurphy (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The idea of including some text in the article about Carlsen's endgame prowess, supported by citations to reliable sources, is sound. But there are some important things to watch for.

In a large article like Magnus Carlsen, especially a biography, you have to be careful about what goes in the lead paragraphs and what goes in the "main body" of the article. The correct organization is for significant text, supported by citations, to go in the main body, and brief summaries, usually not supported by citations (because they are in effect supported by the significant text), to go in the lead paragraphs. This leaves the lead paragraphs relatively short and sweet, for the benefit of the high percentage of readers who only read the lead paragraphs. There is some discussion of this in WP:LEAD. These guidelines have sometimes been violated, even here in Magnus Carlsen, as in the comment about the middlegame that you noticed. It often happens that, while making some change, you notice other things that ought to be changed, but you may not feel you have the time or the expertise to do it at the moment.

Now, going back to Magnus Carlsen, where would we put your text? The answer is, in the Magnus Carlsen#Playing Style section. Some of the other major chess biographies have a section like this, which may be titled "Legacy", which gathers up quotations about the guy's strengths and weaknesses by other leading players.

In that section, we can see that you've been anticipated. There is already a paragraph that begins, "Carlsen's endgame prowess has been described as among the greatest in history[fn][fn][fn]" I didn't notice this when I was commenting on CityOfSilver's edits last night, but it's pretty important for our purpose. You can't just add your text to the existing text. You might be able to improve what's there, by citing better references or by improving the English language, but making the same point twice, in the same section no less, is obviously a bad idea.

Phrases like "... among the greatest in history" are unduly attention-getting for an encyclopedia. The relevant guideline is MOS:PUFFERY. You are welcome to look for a more suitable way of saying what needs to be said.

Having tidied up the "Playing Style" section, what would we do with the lead paragraphs? A single sentence, something like "Carlsen is especially noted for his endgame skills", not even citing any sources, would be appropriate.

Thanks for putting a lot of thought into this! As I said to CityOfSilver, I could, in the best Wikipedia tradition, go in with hatchets and sledgehammers and make these edits myself, but since you have got off to such a promising start, I would much rather let you do it while other editors keep an eye on you. Bruce leverett (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the comprehensive reply. I hadn't consciously' noticed that sentence, either, and I don't recall reading anything from that section, yet my original edit reproduced it almost verbatim. How bizarre! It's even followed by three citations (though only one of them is shared).

I'll continue considering this page and might try my hand at paring back the lead according to what you've said and the pages you've linked to. Thanks Bruce. 38.15.65.197 (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

^That's me, broken italics and all. Forgot to login. *facepalm* 07:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Rockermanmurphy (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I should not have said, "rather let you do it". While suggesting things for other people to do sometimes works in real-world, in-person situations, it's way too subtle for the Wikipedia environment. I will make the changes I suggested. Thanks for the explanations of what you did and why, they're helpful. Now that you have an account with a name, good luck with editing Wikipedia! Bruce leverett (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Editing Support

Hello, I am new to trying to support Wikipedia as an editor. I’m not sure how to handle other editors who are trying very hard to undo my edits and insert obviously non-neutral information in its place. Any advice is appreciated. LeonDias19 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@LeonDias19: Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for the note. I left you that warning message on your user talk page because I sensed that you'd undone others' changes at the Mike Johnson article enough times that you could have been blocked for edit warring and I don't think it would have been fair for you to get such a block for a policy you might not have known about.

Mike Johnson's article is extremely sensitive because in a very short span, he went from obscurity to Speaker of the House. If you've made an edit and another user has undone your change, you should not restore your edit yet. Instead, you should start a discussion at Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) explaining why you thought the article needed the change you made and why the other editor was wrong for undoing you. If you go to the article's talk page and start a new discussion where you're questioning a revert of your edit by someone, that person is almost always going to be required by policy to explain what they're doing and try to work with you on a change everyone can agree with.

I hope I answered your concerns but if not, or if there's something else you think I can help you with, feel free to let me know here. City of Silver 20:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I will go to the talk page to discuss. Thank you for the support! LeonDias19 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot this part. You can get another editor's attention by using what's called a "ping." When I saved my first reply to you, the thing at the beginning of it that says "@LeonDias19:" is a ping and it got your attention by adding that "you have a new message" notification at the top of your browser page. If you wanted to ping me, you'd type this:

{{ping|City of Silver}}

and I'd get that same notification at the top of my browser page. City of Silver 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Signature colour and accessibility

Hiya :). Would you be willing to change your signature colour (the City part) to something that meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? It currently has a contrast of 1:1.4, where 1:4.5 is recommended for contrast with the white background. This tool may help you find a different colour. I've prefilled the colour black we use in Wikipedia. A possible alternative is #8B750F. Thanks in advance :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Femke: Thank you for the note and for the guidance on how to fix this. I need to keep each word a bright color but as you probably know and I just learned, any yellow lighter than practically brown on a white background won't meet the guidelines. I just changed it to a shade of purple, #BC49A6, that I'm pretty sure is in compliance. Would you please let me know? Thanks again. City of Silver 20:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks cool and is compliant :). I think the only way to get an orangy colour is by bolding, which allows you to have a contrast of only 1:3, rather than 1:4.5. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)t

Answered you

But forgot to ping. It got late. Not sure it's what you were looking for, but I'll have some time this weekend if you need, want or would like to talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Thank you for this. I'm a bit short on time myself but I should also be able to jump back into that this weekend. City of Silver 20:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks and sorry about the signature. I usually remember that.

TL;DR is that the article doesn't currently say anything at all about being prime minister or the Provisional Government. The police battalion training unit, well, may or may not have ever existed as an active unit. There are also sources that say it committed a massacre. It definitely did exist as an administrative structure. The sourcing is in Lithuanian though, Itt needs more verification and referencing; detail tweaking.

There are also differences of opinion about whether there was ever a government in exile, apparently. Non-trivial content problems that need attention but don't preclude some or all of those facts from being true nonetheless. Doesn't guarantee that it is either. I put a rough bibliography on the talk page of each article. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: You've done a lot more work on this than you were obligated to do and I wanted you to know that I really appreciate it. I also feel like you participated a whole lot more than you would have if I hadn't asked for more from you and I'm not happy that that's opened you up to a lot of negativity. I'm saying all of this even though I don't (totally) agree with you on the content. City of Silver 20:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

i'm open to disagreement. I'm not immune to nationalistic impulses. but Baltic whatever isn't one of the things I might have them about. But there is at least something there that suggests how a literature professor might happen to be categorized as a war criminal, right? There is a very specific set of criteria for that designation but not only is it not sourced in the article it isn't even said.

Because some editors know things? They might even be right; but it needs to be in the article if so.

why do I keep saying that like I think it's a rule or something? Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

PS Don't feel like I did this for you. A lot of this goes on, can't let it go by when it's this glaringly obvious. Thank you for asking. It was a question that needed to be asked Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie" .

Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

-- EpicTiger87 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussions

Hey, just wanted to clear up a couple things. There's no need to take things so personally. My original comment wasn't particularly even aimed at you, but rather all the participants. My point was just that if we would have had 4-5 people present a succinct "oppose" (or support) comments, this could already have been resolved and done with.

Also, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this edit summary but uninvolved admin is a specific and relevant distinction to be made. Involved admin can't take administrative action in disputes. I was just establishing that I have no stance in this dispute, I don't maintain the article or care about the wording of the article. I only found out about it from an ANI case about it, and as such, I could chose to close disruptive discussions, protect pages, block editors (I don't mean you) etc, if need be.

Anyways, I won't bother you about this further, too much time has already been sunk on this silly dispute. It just didn't feel right leaving it as that, as you seemed to be interpreting some sort of malice that I simply was not intending towards anyone, let alone you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not interested in having this discussion. City of Silver 00:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie" .

Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

EpicTiger87 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You're the only editor who's even bothered to ask about the RFA allegations, which even if they are untrue are nonetheless immensely serious and should've been taken as such until evidence proving or disproving them was provided. It is people like you that save the wiki time and again. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Thank you for this. No matter what the outcome is of this whole thing, you were not treated fairly and I'm glad you spoke out. City of Silver 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Congratulations for being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days! Fantastic job! – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Recife

Hello! I noticed that there was a heated discussion about me with a Portuguese Wikipedia contributor. I apologize for the repeated reversals, but due to inexperience, I didn't find a way to use the "Reversal and warnings" gadget. Regardless of ideological orientation, Paulo Freire is an undeniably notorious personality. In my editions, I restricted myself to restoring and giving due emphasis to scientists born in the city of Recife, and to inserting in the article the Co-Cathedral of Recife. Juniorpetjua (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Juniorpetjua: Thank you for this message. No matter how many or few edits you made, editing like that was very contentious and should have been explained. Each one of those should have had an edit summary saying exactly why you were making that particular change.

Please start a new discussion at Talk:Recife where you give a full, detailed explanation and once you've done that, I would be fine if you restored your changes by reverting me. City of Silver 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is your only warning

Once the war criminals at Google have been arrested, tried, and executed for crimes against humanity, the white hats will be coming for you next. In the mean time, PLEASE DO range block the entire internet. If I were you, however, I would get my affairs in order and flee to one of the few countries left in the control (for now) of your dying Satanic crime syndicate.

Perhaps Moloch will even give you the honor of being his last meal. Cabal Agent 5902 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cabal Agent 5902: Stop hitting the space bar twice after each sentence. It's 2024 so get with the program. City of Silver 02:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia study

Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

If I add a source to the Ohtani Ippei thing and say accused instead of was, will it be posted? Not tryna get banned again. 136.33.146.80 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you do, please proofread what you wrote before you save it. Also, make sure it's confirmed the guy actually got fired before you say that. City of Silver 22:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Congratulations on being among the top three most active pending changes reviewers during the last 30 days. Fantastic job!

– DreamRimmer (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Crugo is a sockpuppet of Stockpeixe

Same modus operandi. Juniorpetjua (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Season 11 - Jet Lag: The Game & Seasons 10 of the Amazing Race Canada, 37 of the Amazing Race US

@City of Silver, can I write about season 11 in the article Jet Lag: The Game? They've just finished filimg and posted photos and made twitter posts, and everyone who watches knows it's season 11. I also tried to write season 11 about 20 times, but Cerebral kept taking it down saying I wasn't citing the sources, which if you go back onto the edit history, is exactly what I did- cite sources and have references. Here is more details on the season which is fair to assume is season 11. [1]https://jetlag.fandom.com/wiki/Season_11.

Also, can I make the race summaries for the 2 amazing race seasons above? The Amazing Race Canada 10 & The Amazing Race 37. I don't have sources from a media press, but I'm part of a group that has photos of all the sightings.

Thanks, and It's okay if I can't do any of the above, but I know a lot, and I'm trying to help and I know you can help too! Jd101991 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)