Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 4 November 2021

This is Extraordinary Writ's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

By far the funniest and most clever Misplaced Pages page I randomly stumbled on. Kudos. The fish genuinely made me laugh out loud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumtimz I B Learnin (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Italia in Comune

Why did you straightaway close the discussion at Talk:Italia in Comune#Requested move 1 September 2021 as Move. I relisted the discussion at 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC), and you closed this as Move at 04:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC, when no one participated after the relist. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I'll comment at the move review. For future reference, the usual courtesy is to wait for a response: filing a move review six minutes after your inquiry doesn't come across as very friendly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Schneiderman v. United States

On 10 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schneiderman v. United States, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Communist Party official was represented in Schneiderman v. United States by a previous Republican nominee for president? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schneiderman v. United States. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Schneiderman v. United States), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, Gog: much appreciated! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hard earned, but I hope that won't prevent you from diving straight back in. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Melville Fuller

Triple Crown

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Twice, actually. Fat fingers... :) --Blablubbs (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Replied. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

• From the editor: Different stories, same place

• News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded

• In the media: China bans, and is there intelligent life on this planet?

• Opinion: A photo on Misplaced Pages can ruin your life

• Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process

• Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention

• Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Misplaced Pages

• Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game

• Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more

• Serendipity: How Misplaced Pages helped create a Serbian stamp

• Book review: Misplaced Pages and the Representation of Reality

• WikiProject report: Redirection

• Humour: A very Wiki crossword

Question from Sim kad (16:30, 4 November 2021)

i want an artist page --Sim kad (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Astana

Regarding the move review.

I pinged you, how could you write anything like that? totally made up.. there is not a single Argument confirming, that Nur-Sultan is now the common Name.

To the contrary, me and Toddy1 have Provided evidence, Astana is the common Name in English.

So Please explain it to me, I want to understand how you could write that.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk)>