Revision as of 16:04, 23 March 2011 editIaaasi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,462 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:53, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2024) (bot | ||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(15d) | ||
|archive = User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/%(year |
|archive = User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/%(year)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{mbox|text=If you are interested in trying ], edit the dedicated "requests" section below. Please leave bug reports and feature requests on this page. Thanks.}} | |||
{{mbox|text=<big>'''My off-wiki communications policy:'''</big> I prefer, to the extent possible, that all communications regarding a Wikimedia matter be done on-wiki for the sake of transparency. If there is a compelling reason why it should be done off-wiki, you may email me or talk to me on IRC, ''but'': | |||
#For IRC, timely, prompt, or indeed any response is '''not''' guaranteed. I stay on IRC even if I am away. If you do not get a response, you may simply send your entire inquiry (i.e., instead of "may I ask a question", ask the question!), in which case I'll treat it like emails when I come back to my computer. | |||
#For emails, I will try to respond as soon as I can, but real-life work obviously must take precedence, and it is easy for incoming emails to get lost after a few days. If you don't get a response within a few days, try leaving me a message on my talk page. | |||
#In all cases, I will respond on-wiki unless there is a compelling reason not to or you explicitly request that I keep it off-wiki. In the latter case, I reserve the right to not respond at all to the message. | |||
#Please do not send private or confidential information; those should be directed to the ]. }} | |||
{{/talkheader}} | {{/talkheader}} | ||
{{/Persistent}} | {{/Persistent}} | ||
== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 == | |||
== Abolition of Prostitution deletion == | |||
] from the past month (December 2024). | |||
Would you mind amending the deletion closure to indicate a merge to ] as well as ]? Several of us indicated this was a closer match in the deletion discussion and would avoid deleting quite as much material.--] (]) 13:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Merge it wherever you want. AfD merge closes are generally not binding as to the merge target. ] (]) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> | |||
== KSL Bug == | |||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
I have just discovered a bug when using KSL to report usernames at ]. In I reported a user via KSL and the application created 3 duplicate entries. ] ] 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:] ] | |||
:Did they update the bot to have the <nowiki>"<!-- Marked -->"</nowiki> comment? Anyway, fixed in r41. Download the new version. ] (]) 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
:: Not sure about the <nowiki>"<!-- Marked -->"</nowiki> comment. Thanks for the fix though ] ] 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
== Deletion of an article which was decided as "keep" == | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
:] ] | |||
:] ] | |||
</div> | |||
Hello Timotheus, | |||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
] | |||
] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
This is regarding the article "Janos Boros" who is a Hungarian Politician. In 2009 there was some move by Romanian users of Misplaced Pages to have this article deleted. The deletion request was rejected and the Article was kept based on the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janos_BOROS . A re-nomination for deletion by User:P199, User:Biruitorul and User:Iaaasi seems ill-motivated in total ignorance of the discussion and conclusions that have happened already in 2009. This way all articles on Misplaced Pages can be endlessly nominated for deletion after each decision to keep. Please do consider all the discussion that have taken place for the article, not just the ones by the three users who re-nominated for delete. In the light of facts and fairness towards the article, we request you to un-delete the article. | |||
:] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
|] | |||
Regards.--] (]) 21:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
|] | |||
:Reopened and relisted. ] (]) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
Hello Timotheus, | |||
|] | |||
Thank you very much for relisting and opening up the debate. appreciate the fairness. | |||
}} | |||
:] ] | |||
Regards. ] (]) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Hello Timotheus! I'd like to inform you that the AFD discussion could be affected these days by the mass canvassing of ], who asked for help to 12 Hungarian users on three projects (hu.wp, en.wp and meta). More details here: (] (]) 15:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)) | |||
Hello Timotheus, The problem is that the discussion has started to become lopsided with hardly any representation from Hungarian users as well. Another aspect of concern is that when the article was nominated a second time for deletion, we came to know about it by accident when we tried to view the page. Under the circumstances, I thought it pertinent to intimate other users about the discussion, as otherwise they might never know about the discussion until it is concluded. If you look at the body of the message posted in the concerned User Talks pages, I clearly ask them to contribute with their views - that is the help I was asking for. Nowhere am I asking them to post a certain opinion favourable to my point of view. Warm regards, ] (]) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:"The discussion has started to become lopsided with hardly any representation from Hungarian users" I don't think there is a clear unbalance, as there are 4 Romanian participants and 2 Hungarians (you and Hobartimus). (] (]) 16:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)) | |||
== A premature decision? == | |||
Hi Timotheus. On February 21 ] was . Apparently you replaced ]'s topic ban on I/P related articles with 1 R/R per week restriction. It could have been a premature decision. The user demonstrates rather tendentious editing pattern in the topic area. Please see . The user was only warned for it, but as ] said: | |||
In #3 (made 17 minutes after the first two reverts) ] removed well sourced information. Of course that edit was reverted at once (not by me). Before that the user ]. The user claimed it to be ] and told me at my talk page that . IN AFD the user calls this ] Timotheus, it was said about two 13 and 14 years old boys, who were '''stoned to death'''. It was said about the boy, whose story prompted US Congress to adopt the Act of Koby Mandell. | |||
In the user calls ] "a local paper", and claims that "US congress which many of the keep voters mentioned was never passed". I understand that the latest claim was brought up by confusion expressed by another user, but when the confusion was cleared up, that claim should have been stricken out, but it never have. | |||
If you to add to all of the above filing an not actionable AE on ], and ] behavior on a not the same but | |||
it really looks the topic will benefit with ] taking a break. | |||
</div> | |||
Regards.--] (]) 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
:Apologies about the delay. I'd prefer that this be taken to AE so that we can get more eyes on it (and give Passionless an opportunity to respond) before any action is taken. ] (]) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
== Question == | |||
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ]. | |||
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space. | |||
] '''Technical news''' | |||
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. | |||
] '''Arbitration''' | |||
Hello. Sorry for disturbing you, but I don't understand why you have restored the article about ]. In the previous AfD discussion there were 3 participants, and all of them supported the deletion. I thought it is clear that it does not pass ] or ]. Can you please give me some details? Thanks in advance (] (]) 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)) | |||
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}. | |||
:The first AfD closed as no consensus after a vigorous debate and someone brought up sources (which may or may not withstand scrutiny). Then in the second AfD the three people who commented didn't bother to address the keeps from the first AfD at all. You can't deny that there's the appearance that the second AfD sneaked through - and appearance is just as important in those cases. ] (]) 04:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
] '''Miscellaneous''' | |||
== ''The Signpost'': 21 March 2011 == | |||
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ] | |||
---- | |||
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
{{center|{{flatlist| | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-03-21}} | |||
* ] | |||
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 12--> | |||
* ] | |||
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 01:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)</div> | |||
* ] | |||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0124 --> | |||
}}}} | |||
<!-- | |||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 --> | |||
== |
== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 == | ||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div> | |||
You wrote that "The idea that one edit cannot be edit warring, while perhaps superficiality appealing, does not hold up under scrutiny.". This is not what I (or others) were saying. Yes, ''under extreme circumstances'', such as coordinated edit warring, socking and so on, one edit can be edit warring. But those are not the circumstances here. Making a single edit in an ongoing edit war should not make one an edit warrior, one revert is permissible. It is the second revert that makes one into an edit warrior, and that condition was not met by VM (who generally made talk comments, and reverted once only after days passed with nobody replying to him). I believe that VM was acting within BRD, that one of his reverts ended up being in the middle of a (slow) edit war should not be seen as a problem. If there is an edit war going somewhere, I go, I post at talk, I get no replies and and then make a single revert to the article (with an informative edit summary, explaining my rationale and asking editors to join me at talk) am I edit warring? I very much think no (and this is what VM did). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 --> | |||
:It's a hypothetical in response to someone's claim that "no reasonable person should consider a single edit to be edit warring"; a general comment only. I thought I was quite clear that I didn't have an opinion on VM's conduct - largely since I haven't yet reviewed the history myself in detail. ] (]) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:53, 15 January 2025
Please click here to leave me a new message.
AfC submissions Random submission |
2+ months |
1,859 pending submissionsPurge to update |
Notes
PGP key |
---|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24 QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv 9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k 3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3 W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4 Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950 VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8 df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK 2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU 2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+ wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432 E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0 RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7 /L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc= =oCnW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
[REDACTED] Oversight changes
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2025
- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics