Misplaced Pages

User talk:CBDunkerson: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:37, 8 September 2006 editRetired username (talk | contribs)48,708 edits →CBD should be the Wiki President← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:46, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,141,441 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__ __NOTOC__
{{administrator|cat=no}}
{| border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="background: #FFFFFF; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse;" width="100%" {| border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="background: #FFFFFF; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse;" width="100%"
|- |-
!colspan=2 bgcolor=#CCCCFF align="left"|] <big>Message Page for Conrad Dunkerson</big> (CBDunkerson) !colspan=2 bgcolor=#CCCCFF align="left"|] <big>Message Page for Conrad Dunkerson</big> (CBDunkerson)
] <br/>
|-
] ]<br/>
| valign="top"|
] <br> ] ]<br/>
] ]<br/>
] {{purge|Refresh this page}}<br clear="all"> ] {{purge|Refresh this page}}<br clear="all">
] ]
|} |}


== Administrators' newsletter – July 2024 ==
{| class="infobox"
|-
!align="center"|]<br/>]
----
|-
| ]<br/><!--
-->]<br/><!--
-->]<br/><!--
-->]<br/><!--
-->]<br/><!--
-->]
|}


] from the past month (June 2024).
==Realms of Beleriand==
Hey, have a question. What are the Beleriand realms exactly? I think the information listed on the Beleriand article is slightly inaccurate. Here's what I know of the realms of Beleriand so far (please correct me where I might be wrong): Doriath is a given, of course. Thingol allowed the Ñoldor to establish their realms/kingdoms in Beleriand, which were Hithlum, Nargothrond, Nevrast, and the March of Maedhros. After Morgoth drove the Ñoldor out of the earlier stated realms, they settled in Ossiriand and Lindon. There is also Falas. (Estolad I would consider as a sub-realm rather than a main realm since it's within the March; Dor-lómin I would also consider as a sub-realm). But the rest listed in the article I know of our simply lands, forests, etc. I think the resouce used for that information was probably the Encyclopedia of Arda, but the Encyclopedia is not entirely accurate. —''']]]]''' 01:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Alright, thanks CBD. I'm going to tweak the listings of Beleriand realms. Or would it be better to literally create a ]? What do you think? —''']]]]''' 00:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


]
== includeonly ==


] '''Administrator changes'''
I don't know if you remember, but a while ago you helped me with my welcome message. You suggested the use of {{{nocode}}} to evaluate the subst: when the template is subst:ed. Turns out there's a much simpler way: <includeonly> tags around the subst. See ] for details. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:] {{Hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{Hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|] (])
|]
|]
}}


] '''Technical news'''
== Importance of good faith ==
* Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. ] on MediaWiki. ({{phab|T6086}})


] '''Miscellaneous'''
I understand the 3RR policy very well because I enforce it a lot. My first edit was an edit. Of course you could count as it "undoing another editor's work," because it didn't include part of a sentence that was in the version I tidied, and so in theory it was a revert to a previous version, but then all deletions are reverts to previous versions that didn't contain that material. This would be taking 3RR to the very edge of what counts as a technical violation.
* The ] is re-opening on 15 July 2024. ]


----
I suggest we agree to disagree and let this entire issue go. I believe you may have violated a policy, and you disagree. You believe I may have violated a policy, and I disagree. We can either argue about it for the rest of our lives, or we can forget it. I suggest the latter, because there's nothing at stake. Although I believe you protected while involved, I don't believe you acted in bad faith. I just believe you made a mistake or that you interpret the policy differently from me. Similarly, although you believe I reverted four times, you probably also don't believe I acted in bad faith. What counts above all for me is good faith, because we all make mistakes, and we all have our own interpretations of policy, but so long as good faith is there, these differences can be overcome and worked with. I do still trust you as an admin (very much so, in fact), and I apologize if anything I wrote gave you the impression that I don't. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1231927808 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – August 2024 ==
Please see my comment on my talk CBD. I never said, or meant to at least, that you are not "gracious".''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


] from the past month (July 2024).
== Rounddown/Roundup reverts ==
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
I see that you have reverted the ] and ].
:] ]
:] {{Hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
But you are restoring a known serious bug of ''mod'' and ''floor'' in PHP and that transpires in MediaWiki.
:] ]


</div>
(Note also that negative numbers are incorrectly rounded, it's not only small positive numbers)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


]
Just try rounding 0, you get... -1. See the test in Rounddown... Note that floor in PHP is using mod which is symetric around 0, this makes it inappropriate touse directly for computing floor, if we don't test the sign to round the non-integers. This is waht makes the Template:Floor much less intuitive as you would think.


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Now I've got calcs that will return again the wrong results if I use the reverted templates. I discovered the Media Wikibugs when computing dates.
:] ]


</div>
My correction was not much complicate. And I had avoided to use Pow for computing roundings, when powers of ten constants can be used in a small switch covering the same range of acceptable number of decimals (-20 to 20).
</div>


] '''Technical news'''
] 03:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
* ] may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may ] when appropriate.
:Why is a switch using the powers of ten constant better than calling the pow template to compute them? As to the -0 and other rounding anomalies... personally I don't consider them a big deal given the limited circumstances in which they occur. However, they can be addressed by directly identifying and handling those conditions separately. --] 04:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
* Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via ]. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
::The problem affects several ranges, one range for '''each''' value of the decimals parameter.
::This means that you need to test all these ranges,depending on each decimal, then you'll need to compute powon each of them, in which case they are constant, and you don't need Pow.
::Once you have suppressed Pow, the range is tested in template:Floor. There's only one call to Floor on the server, because it evaluates the switch as a builtin. And so Floor will be called only once before redividing its result by the reverse Pow constant.
:: Believe me. These are not "limited" circumstances, and this is what has really complicated the expressions for calculating dates (without those corrections almost all calcs were wrong). ] 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Also try rounding up -1 with 0 decimals: your version will add 0.5, so you'll get "-1.5" which finally rounds to... -2.
:: The symetry of the builtin "round" '''is the problem''', ceiling and flooring are '''not''' symetric for negative numbers (and that's why the ] was written to get the true mathemetical meaning). ] 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Hrrrrm? -1 + 0.5 equals -0.5, which correctly rounds to -1. The '-0' issue is something inherent in parserFunction rounding and ought to be addressed there rather than putting switches in each template performing rounding operations to get around it... but note that it shouldn't impact calculations at all. It is only a display issue. The 'switch to avoid pow' is presumably motivated by an effort to 'save processing time', but both are insignificant calculations... and the extra call to 'floor' burns just as many nano-seconds. --] 04:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Processing time is not the issue. My version or yours takes the same time. But you seem to ignore the fact that the built-in mod or floot operators are definitely not the mathematical operators because they are symetric (whichmeans that the absolute value of their result is the same independantly of the signof the operand),unlike the mathematical operators which are '''not'''. There's a difference, and it is significant in '''many''' cases for correct arithmetic.
:::These templates are made for maths; they must respect some axiomatic definitions: they won't change integer values, they will round non-integers in the correct direction. Otherwise the result in formulas using them is unpredictable.
:::The "-0" issue is not from MediaWiki but from the way PHP internally manage numbers, using signed zeroes, that it "displays" in strings. MediaWiki actually does not parse these signs that docomefrom the result of calculation, see:
::: {{{#calc: (0.4 - 0.6) round 0 }}: all is positive; MediaWiki does not parse numbers while exvaluating the operations, it only parse the expressions, but not the intermediate results.during processing, it even keeps the datatype of the operand (integer or float) as determined by PHP.
::: I don't understand whyyou have started this edition war, ignoring the bugs that I had described enough in my initial commit (also discussed elsewhere),and then documented in the template page byadding tests for them. Isn't it enough?
::: Believe me the #expr are complex, and that's why we need those templates for correct mathematics. They are needed to handle the complex cases, otherwise, we wouldnot use them and would use the supplied operators as they are... The simplest cases don't need those templates, it's needed for the complex cases,because there are even more complex formulas that depend on them. 05:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::I haven't been ignoring your test cases... you just keep adding more of them. :] My primary concern is just that the template has grown from a single line of logic to a few pages for details which don't impact any of the pages actually using these templates at present. On the 'symmetry' issue... that's actually the way ''most'' calculations do it in my experience. I've just tried three different tools and all show rounddown(-0.3, 0) = 0 rather than -1. You want these to work on a 'next lower value' rather than 'towards zero', but I don't think that is the way most people are used to seeing them behave and thus they produce unexpected results for many the way you have them now. For most templates I really don't think it matters, but our 'roundup' and 'rounddown' templates now work differently than the built in 'round'... which means sometimes formulas will round 'symmetrically' and sometimes not, creating greater confusion than if all rounding were consistent. --] 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::It is not "a few pages". The active part is a single line switch and a simple 1-line formula per case. Not difficult to understand. The pages are for the doc (not included when using them). Thosetemplates were createdin the math category for math use. Wedon't need them for the other use which is ignoring negative values. Andyou should have noted the cases for things like rounddound(0.12345, 3) or roundup(0.123, 3) which must be 0.123, not to zero like your modified version incorrectly returns (and this case '''is''' part of the common-sense meaning, and for them, the builtin round operator works just as well without needing the template). Those templates ensuse that roundxxx(value, decimals)=roundxxx(value+N, decimals) in all cases where N is any positive or negative positive offset. A lot of formulas using modular arithmetic depend on this property. In fact, as long as the existing builtin operators will not be corrected (to avoid returning "-0", including for positive values), and similar builtin "ceil" and "floor" operators won't be provided, these templates will be needed. Those templates that use the builtin "round" and "mod" were tested in their own cases and patched according to usage; But when they finally can't be fully debugged, the templates come to the rescue and provide consistent results.
::If you still think that these templates should implement the "common-sense" symetric behavior, it will '''still''' require you test the sign of the value and the decimals cases to return consistent results for the near-zero value range. The result will be even more complicate than the current implementation. Your implementation is inconsistant in '''both''' the "common-sense" and mathematical usages.
::(my opinion is that the "common-sense" usage may be implemented using new built-in operators similar to ''round'', and they will still be different from the mathemetical ''floor'' and ''ceil'' functions, and for most people the common-sense just dictates using normal rounding to the nearest rounded value). ] 12:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
==Infobox Tolkien==
* The Arbitration Committee ] the following administrators to the ]: {{noping|Bilby}}, {{noping|Extraordinary Writ}}
Just letting you know that there's a new proposal of the syntax by Carcharoth ], so please share your opinion as a WP:ME participant. —''']]]]''' 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


----
==Kosher==
{{center|{{flatlist|
thanks for the clrification about user talk pages. re template:featured, i clearly stated any further GA-spam would be treated as vandalism, after which the user went on to ignore the talk page discussion and re-add GA-spam to template:featured. so as per warning it was treated as vandalism. all is now well as raul654 has locked the template to prevent further GA spam from this nuisance user. as for "mental retards" i never said such a thing - just quoting another user in the talk page discussion, nothing to do with me. ] 22:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (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=1238586059 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – September 2024 ==
=={{tl|DYK-Refresh}}==
Hello Conrad, you seem to be the main author of the excellent refresh template and you kindly fixed some formatting anomalies recently. Unfortunately it seems to have "gone off the rails" again for some reason. It's currently displaying ]. I'd be grateful if you could have a look into this, thanks. --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 08:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


] from the past month (August 2024).
:Thanks for the interim fix. Such are the joys of collaborative editing I guess, with little bits here and there being switched back and forward ''':'''-) I just find the template incredibly useful for updating DYK, both in refreshing the update time without having to compute UTC offset factors and as a quick glance view of when an update is overdue. Thanks again. --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
== Blainetologist ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
See ]. According to Essjay he's Enviroknot. ] 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:] ]


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
==Thank you==
:] ]
Thank you very much for your message, im not this enviroknot person, someone was playing a cruel joke. I just want to help. ] 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


</div>
== New Article ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


]
Hi, I'm new here.
I just created an article called the ]. But is is not showning up when I type it up in the box. What do I do?Also, how do I add it to the War of the Ring campaignbox template?
Thanks.--] 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


] '''Oversighter changes'''
It is still not showing up from the search box. Is there anything I have to do to make it show up? --] 18:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Hmmm....I tried clicking the Go button, but still no good. Wonder what's going on.--] 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


</div>
==Before==

Thanks for trying to figure out what went wrong with {{tl|before}} and for trying to fix it. --] 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for the image labelling ==

Hi there. Thanks for the image labelling at the Middle-earth images gallery. I see you didn't manage to do them all in one go! It is really the "other" section (the last one) that I am most interested in, but looking at the key you supplied, and the licence you get when clicking on the pictures, I think I understand this whole copyright/licencing thing a litle bit more clearly. Thanks! ] 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, you did a great job collecting images so it took a while to get through them. Yeah, the license pages are usually the best bet once you know what the different categories mean, but there are always quite a few which are mis-labeled (though that usually gets corrected eventually). --] 00:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProject Middle-earth ==

Hi there. I was just wondering about the May roll call for WikiProject Middle-earth. I mentioned it to Mirlen before she went on her WikiBreak, and she said I should feel free to call one. Trouble is, I am going to be rather busy this weekend, and it is nearly the end of May. On the other hand, there are now 20 participants signed up and lots that could be done (or maybe people are working away on their own little areas - hard to tell). What do you think is best to do? ] 02:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
:OK, I'll wait til June. Good idea about having the roll call separate from the participants list. This is the first place on Misplaced Pages that I have encountered the concept of a roll call. I was a bit taken aback at first (sounds like being back at school), but I like the idea now. Maybe rephrasing it as "active members" is a bit better. Trouble is, there will always be those names that are long-term inactive, which is why I like the idea of a "thanking past participants" bit. How should this be done? I would guess any changes would need to be discussed among active members at the WikiProject?
:Another thing, is that I'm still really trying to get the hang of the ropes here and stay on top of things and keep organised. Even in what is really quite a small area of Misplaced Pages, I still feel that things get unmanageable very quickly. Too much spotting one thing, then moving on to something else before really finishing that thing off. Still trying to find the balance between organising, editing, reading Misplaced Pages content, and reading/learning Misplaced Pages policies and tools! Oh, and also the delicate balance between "being bold" and "forming consensus"!
:Maybe the idea I saw somewhere (either the portal or the WikiProject) of agreeing on a collaboration of the week might help? ] 17:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

== Infobox Character ==

Hey

Thanks for creating the template but I was wondering if y'all could just alter something. When you add the pic it screws up the info underneath it. If I knew who to bloody alter it I would. Can y'all just help with that one last thing. Something like this one ] but more for other characters of cause.

Cheers

] 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)]
* Actually don't worry about it. I made my brain work. Thanks though. ] 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

== Could you take a look at this? ==

There's a request for mediation here: and it was suggested by a mediator there that a vote initiated and monitored by an Admin could resolve this dispute. I don't want to write the vote myself because I feel it would be fairer if a neutral third party oversaw this high-profile matter. (In case you're wondering why I picked you, I skimmed through the admin list and saw your "fair shake" tag and so thought you would be open to mediating.) -- ] 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

== Template request ==

Thanks for getting back to me on the Photoshop template. The three currently in existence will do just fine. ]]] ] 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


==Re: Content dispute==
Actually the current piece of information has been worded with the disclaimer of ''early reviews'' so there's no need to remove the information at the moment. Bignole has been adamantly denying that piece of trivia's existence in the film, even though it's been commented upon by both regular users on various messageboards ''and'' accredited reviwers from the press. The user had been making a series of deletions of this content, despite the information's ] thru various reliable sources. I actually had to apologize to a new editor for Bignole's poor-faith edits. --] 00:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

== ME reference templates ==

Thanks for tidying up the ] article. I noticed that the reference style you used was to refer to the chapter, rather than the page number. This seems like a good idea, as it would avoid the messy thing with page numbers. I wonder if the book title link could be to a list of editions, or if the reference template, while giving details of one edition, could incorporate a "other editions" link - or would that contravene the house style of Misplaced Pages? ] 15:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

== Well done ==
''elements cross-posted''

You could have asked ''anyone'' to do that, but instead you chose to involve yourself, and also chose not to mention to anyone that you had done it (least of all, myself, per my request).

Quite frankly, I'm not even remotely surprised at your behaviour, and that really rather saddens me.

] ] 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

:: I agree - I was involved. I was, indeed, ''already'' involved. You, however, were completely uninvolved in this manner until you decided to go charging in, and ignored a direct plea (that was essentially directed at you and no-one else) not so to do. I agree completely that I erred in doing it myself, but ''you'' erred both in bringing yourself into a situation wherein you were comprimised and in deliberately provoking a wheel-war when none existed, as well as your actual action itself; all I merely did was follow policy where I had a minor stake in proceedings. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I upset you - it was not in any way my intent.
:: I wasn't aware that Locke hadn't made any actual edits with his account for two weeks until after you went against my request - had you pointed this out to me, I would (of course!) have undone my actions. However, you evidently don't get the emails - I'm very happy for you, and, certainly, envious. But to say that Locke has actually left the Wikimedia bubble is... well, probably not true. Which is sad, because I don't want Locke to have to float around in the ether - I want him back, making a difference and helping with the project, along with the rest of us. I do find it rather odd that you seem to think that I have some sort of vendetta against him, though... where did you get that impression from?
:: And you ''really'' didn't try hard enough if you say that I'm not on IRC - I'm currently connected to over a dozen Wikimedia channels. :-) Out of curiosity, why do you hate IRC? I find it a most wonderful, free-flowing medium wherein useful and rapid discussion and agreement can take place...
:: ] ] 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

:I assume James is talking about (excerpt):
:* 13:16, May 27, 2006 CBDunkerson deleted "User:Locke Cole" (Call it 'wheel warring' if you will, but Jdforrester absolutely should not be the one making decisions on this issue. The supposedly 'not' vanished user had made no edits in two weeks. And none to this page but deletion requests for a month. Harassment wo)
:* 11:47, May 27, 2006 Jdforrester protected User:Locke Cole (As per my comment. Prevention of RTV crypto-vandalism. )
:* 11:43, May 27, 2006 Jdforrester restored "User:Locke Cole" (I'm terribly sorry that you want me to "go fuck self", but that doesn't allow you to request RTV when you don't go away.)
:I'm also wondering what it needs to let Locke Cole finally go. Jimbo himself even deleted Locke's talk (excerpt):
:* 00:10, May 18, 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "User talk:Locke Cole" (I figure, let him go. Who cares? not worth fighting about)
:What makes me wondering is James' comment "RTV crypto-vandalism"... (I assume RTV means right to vanish). --] 22:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::I believe he was suggesting that Locke Cole was actually abusing the 'right to vanish' principle as a means of inserting incivil comments... which wouldn't be 'vandalism' per se in any case, but also just didn't make alot of sense to me. If the page weren't undeleted there'd be no nasty comments in the request to delete it again... it would just be gone. The aspect labelled 'crypto-vandalism' could only exist when Locke Cole's request was ''refused''... rather than granted. Making such refusal seem self-defeating. Anyway, it may hopefully be settled now. --] 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:::The incivil comment of Locke towards James did sadden ''me''. It was a bad day to see a good wikipedian turning to the darker side. But I assume it's hard to keep high standards after this harsh soon to be punishment by the ArbCom. But of course, it's their decision and I have to accept it. I also understand that it must be a tough job what the ArbCom is doing. I just hope they are aware of their great responsibilities. As sad as it is. AGF, once again. --] 08:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

: Conrad,
: I wrote a response. It was about 2 kwords long (after some serious prunage), and it took me about 2 hours... and then Firefox spontaneously died. I really, ''really'' can't face writing it again. Suffice to say that I took issue with you on some points, agreed on others, and generally exuded lots of wikilove. ;-)
: Sorry.
: ] ] 08:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== {{]}} ==

Very many thanks for taking this on. Templates look so simple when done by someone who knows what they are doing. I had no idea where to start. Small additional note for you at ] ] 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:Minor bug. Reported on ]. I hope it's minor, at least, ] 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Portal template ==

There's nothing to apologize for, the tfd notice is ''supposed'' to go on the template to invite discussion. Anyway, my argument for deletion was flawed, since portalspace is indeed apparently part of the encyclopedia (which means that links to WikiProjects from portals are self-references, but whatever), so the template probably is valid after all. --] 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you! ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working Man's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I know the template isn't quite finished yet, but you've gone out of your way to fix a template everyone else was afraid to touch (myself included) :) ] 03:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
|}

Do you think it can be added to any articles yet?--] 03:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Tip of the day idea...==
I see that you are still accumulating barnstars. Congrats. I was wondering if it wouldn't be to much trouble for you to create a modified version of the totd template, one which displays a random tip. Please reply below, I'll be checking back. --] 06:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:No problem. I'll put something together this afternoon. --] 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

==I need your help==
I will probably be blocked by Sasquatch for contacting you, but if you can, I need your help. It would be preferable if you could unblock my current account ], and block him so he can stop blocking me without rationale. Essentially I have been permanently blocked in retaliation for one instance of personal attacks - which were in response to an administrator-vandal's spamming my talkpage. I have tried to contact other users but Sasquatch blocks every account I make. ] 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Number one, I never should have been blocked. My use of vulgarity was in response to the repeated vandalism of my talkpage by Sasquatch and Jacoplane. They either do not understand basic Misplaced Pages policies or choose not to follow them. Number two, Marknw's actions '''were''' vandalism. He was spamming every page with the same irrelevant, incorrect, pov nonsense. That's vandalism! Im tired of this '''bullshit'''. Unblock both of my accounts now. Neither one is a sockpuppet because as I have repeatedly stated I am switching over to ]. Neither administrator will be punished for their actions because no one ever is. ] 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== DateMath and Uncle Ed ==

I was visiting Uncle Ed Poor, and saw you'd worked together on templates in ], so decided to pick on you (you lucky devil!) <g>
#Thanks, btw, for the quickfix on the 'indent template' I ported over from wikisource (last week? whenever!).
#Can you take a look at a gripe I've got in general on lack of some sort of datestamp on certain templates: ], which should give you the gist. The template Mr. Shear cites has a see also list which are'' 'lesser offenders' '' by my lights, but all would none-the-less benefit from having a noticible date embedded. (The older/longer it's been, the more likely it should be removed or at least purused carefully, save for unref types). This wouldn't be necessary if people properly documented on the Talk pages when applying same, but the usual seems to be no coresponding talk edit at all. So I'm looking for a fallback solution!
#Of particularly nettlesome kind, the merge-to/merge-from templates seem to go sans action (or discussion) fairly often. I've chased several down that were put in place well over six months earlier and one nearly went a year, without a sufficient note in the edit summary (I finally caught on to the use of the words 'tag' and 'tagged' vice template <g>) but even so, if the article gets edit action, it takes quite a while to track back through history to find the actual edit and date applied.
#A self-dating template would thus save a lot of man-hours when one is trying in good faith to clear one of these templates. (e.g. See ] history for the effort I went through to find out when and who applied that 'Original Research' allegation, then the clear way I documented removing it. Most people aren't that consciencious when the girlfriend has come in or something!

In any event, if you have something that will ''subst the current date into these things'', I'm prepared to do something to get them inserted in the key templates. It'll save me a lot of time in the long run, no matter how many talk page arguements I have to conduct in the short run! After all, I don't think there is much hope at getting editors to actually annote the talk pages when placing such consistantly!

Also, is there any common category or a few categories that these things cause to be asserted? I know the unref, clean, copyedit ones assert a category, but do they all manifest on some super category (list) I can browse as well? What do I need to key in on &mdash; the <noinclude> cat </noinclude> nesting construct to tell for myself?

Thanks // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Frank. All of the templates in ] are supposed to add pages they are transcluded on to one of the sub-categories of ]. Thus, you should be able to use that category to browse open issues. For the 'self-dating' aspect you are looking for take a look at {{]}}, {{]}}, and {{]}}. None of them are ideal, but those include three different ways that dates are currently inserted. The 'fix' template and most others just has an optional 'date' field which is usually left blank... even in templates where it is mandatory. DYK-Refresh includes a required Julian Date timestamp and always displays the current time/template format on the last line for easy copying. Prod probably comes closest to what you are looking for - it displays the date the template was added to the page and even adds the page to a dated sub-category. The problem with Prod is that it only works if substituted, which means that you get a big block of wikimarkup on the article page. That wouldn't be accepted for most of these maintenance templates. However, there should be a way around it using nested templates. If you substitute in 'template A' which does nothing except call 'template B' with the same parameters you set ''plus'' one more which is the substituted current date, then you would end up with a call directly to 'template B' on your article with the date automatically hard-coded. The only problems with this method are that the user ''has'' to use the 'subst:' tag for it to work properly and users can still go directly to 'template B' without including the date. If you are interested we could probably do something along the lines of the 'fix' template to cover the existing maintenance scenarios with a hard-coded date as above. --] 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== (no subject) ==

*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_2&diff=52921585&oldid=52920509
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3ATest-self&diff=56740699&oldid=39603919
You lose. — <small>Jun. 6, '06</small><tt> ''' <<u class=plainlinks>|</u>>'''</tt>
:Heh. Yeah... we're just being over-run with those new uses of QIF. However will we 'maintain the deprecation' when a couple of times a ''month'' someone who hasn't heard of #if: yet mistakenly uses QIF? Why, at this rate there could be a ''dozen'' new pages this year that we will have to take five seconds updating. Each! Woe is us. :]
:C'mon. I stand by my prior statement as it was obviously correct. There was no need to delete those boolean templates because even the '''much''' more common 'qif' template has been and remains deprecated. As time goes by the '''handful''' of stragglers still using QIF will find out about #if: and even these ''rare'' applications of it will cease. Surely you have better things to worry about? Or are you for some reason desperate to continue the pointless nastiness over 'meta-templates'? --] 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, let's not delete them then, let's move them out of template space and into the museum. And what can be said about , where one person puts a conditional template inside another that's supposed to be always substed, then other people unknowingly proliferate the template across a couple hundred pages, which I spent much of yesterday cleaning up. — <small>Jun. 7, '06</small><tt> ''' <<u class=plainlinks>|</u>>'''</tt>

== Space vs Indent ==
Help! Seriously! <g>

re: Demo at ],
and notice the morph I tried {{tl|space}} (using &emsp or &nbsp makes no(?) sig. diff). Can't figure out how to suppress unwanted newline after template. Is this a side effect of parser 'switch', the system software implimentation of templates in general (Doesn't strike TRUE to my experience hereon), or some trick I don't know. (I'm in denial that it's 'impossible'! <g>)

What I seek is one or the other (assume it's the 'space' version to allow:
#{space|1}{space|5}test text1
#{space|3}{space|3}test text2
#{space|2}{space|4}test text3

to have all three test lines lined up nice and purty!

OTOH, (assuming all three of these lines are right justified to start)
*{space|1}{space|5}test text1
:{space|3}{space|3}test text2
:{space|2}{space|4}test text3

Should display like (Fill in yer own mental 'spaces' <g>):

*{space|1}{space|5}test text1{space|3}{space|3}test text2{space|2}{space|4}test text3

So 'Doc', is there any hope of this? Thanks for the time! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

;Back quick!
Intriguingly, shows space doing just what I would expect! Harrumph! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:There are a number of bugs and odd behaviours around the use of spaces in templates - all of which seem to be coming into play here. Since templates were designed to ignore large gaps of blank space to allow formatting of the 'template code' they often handle actually intended gaps in the display incorrectly.
:One trick I have used in the past is to alternate &nbsp and ' '. As in; '*&nbsp &nbsp *' = *&nbsp; &nbsp; *
:I'm not sure whether that will help, but I'll test out some options. --] 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the trials and post on me Talk! Hope you're right... I noticed (see prior version using 'indent' which is our 'space' for the moment here pending your fix (I had faith!) that and ] were behaving entirely differently when I ported the modified version back to en.wikiP! I'll let you know if I have a bug there too! This HTML psuedo-implementation (not to mention browser issues, esp. with IE6!) must keep you guys busy.

Also, pass the word that I've created ] which should be added to any template bearing on matters historical... Should cut down redundant template creation in the long run, not to mention let editors survey what's already out there. Are there any other template categories, such as perhaps a ] to give people a head start on doing such poking around? (I guess I'm into categories lately! <g> Some big diffs on the Commons and here that need ironed out!

Thanks again muchly! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:No problem. For template browsing see ]. --] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

;btw on templates and cats
These should both be ] since they use the switch function (???), correct? // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, probably. --] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

==Sasquatch==
Sasquatch has reached a new low, and is now using sockpuppets to vandalize my userpage. See , , , , . Are you going to take any action? -KI
:User has already been blocked. If you think they are a sock see ]. --] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Tracking down/e-mailing a user... ==

Hey, I figured an admin might be of some help here... User Ulf.dietrich uploaded the picture that's now on the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Fifa_world_cup_org.jpg. It's a good picture of a hard-to-photograph item, but it's very small, and in the comments he says it's also available in full res (3008x2000). People have left comments on the talk page, here and at German wikipedia, but is there any way to email him? Do you have access to that? Can he be found through his IP address at least?
:Use . --] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::Cool; now can you unprotect it, since it's no longer on the main page? Thanks. --] 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

==Kudos, yet again...==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Tip of the Day Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To ''']''' for going above and beyond all expectations by designing a ], which enables the immediate further use of the whole tip library as a resource, here is another bright and shiny (]) lightbulb! --] 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
|}

== Wow. ==

Wow. I couldn't have said it better on WP:AN. In fact, I'd be stumbling all over myself trying. —&nbsp;]] <sup>(])</sup> 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== The big If question! ==

Hi again. Need a little template expertise ... how to get an simple 'if branching' action.

To whit, want the output of the second line to match , but iff (if and only if) Arg1 is presented. Otherwise want no display for the second (Main Article) link generation line. Note in the category lines' 'parameter' (number is '1' now, needs to be '2' in {WikiPcat2}...) will then need be morphed to <nowiki>{{{2|{{{PAGENAME}}}</nowiki>| .

FYI: 'WikiPcat2' has only one page linked to it, and has no arguements, so it can be safely changed directly, as the default Category is still going to be the default category output.

Not bad though&mdash;I've gone from knowing nothing about templates to writing nearly a dozen in four daZe <g> (see: useage and notes in {{tl|Commonscat2R}}, {{tl|Commonscat4M}}, etcetera for a hint), or modifying another 4 or 5 too for the commons.

Are there BOOLEAN capabilities? One application I have in mind will need a bounds test against two values with apropos branching, computations, and output generation. I don't recollect seeing any in the math set you and Ed Poor were discussing.

I'm also interested in persuing that 'date' issue using 'fix' (iirc) eventually, but want to get this commons vs WikiP category normalization stabilized first. Besides, I figure I need to learn more about these danged things besides how to use them first!

Thanks fer hold me hand, as it were. Best regards, // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 16:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gratziass, or however that's spelled! I was just tearing apart 'succession' which seems to use some modular coding to build the display. Dang! Something grabbed me in another browser tab... I started writing this about the time you finished your answer OMT! Sigh... I'll probably edit confict with my self now! Best! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 00:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==The timestamp crises==
Briefly browsing Help:variable, I gather this is what you were refering to about the subst issue:
<div style="float:center; width:60%;border: 1px solid black; margin-left: 15em; padding: 1em 3em 1em 3em; font-style:italic">'Includeonly subst magic:

When a template containing <nowiki>{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}</nowiki> is substituted, the time of doing that is put in the wikitext, and similarly for other variables.

Examples:

<nowiki>{{CURRENTTIME}}</nowiki>
: 16:07 - stays a variable on pages including the template
<nowiki>{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}</nowiki>
: 21:25 - became a substituted constant in the template
<nowiki>{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}</nowiki>
: 16:07 - becomes a constant at the time of its inclusion '
</div> </div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
So I infer you were saying to set up one template 'substtime' with 16:38 called by another where you want the datestamp, such as one of the merge/clean/etc. templates. Seems to be a piece missing... the template is still going to be called each time the file is edited... ever renewing itself, I'd guess, hence we'd need a numeric equivilent date to feed a template that then subst's that into a call to the 'output' template... which construct holds the aggragated arguments to a display template. Complicated! reminds me of working strings back in the bad old days of FORTRAN. No wonder it's not been done! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 16:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
* Following an ], there is a new ]: ], which {{tq|applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past}}.
* A ] is open to discuss whether ] should be adopted as a ].


] '''Arbitration'''
== Mystery Manifestation ==
* Following a ], ] (the topic and interaction bans on ], respectively) were repealed.
* ] of the ] ("{{noping|Cinderella157}} German history topic ban") was ] for a period of six months.
* The arbitration case ] is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
Getting A strange side effect in using {{tl|see also}} in that this group of categories ALL prefixed by ':' has one showing up to categorize the listing page... which happens to be an AfD page I'm involved with wearing my 'fix up the article hat'. In any event, short of removing the post, I'm not sure what to do (if anything). To be clear, the Afd page is showing up as a Page in the ] under 'W'.
* Editors can now enter into ], an alternative for informal '']'' arrangements, to have a ] reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
* A ] is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. ]


----
There was a second file manifesting there (I can't recall it's name, but was also under 'W') as well until this edit:
{{center|{{flatlist|
''22:37, 10 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional universes (→List of fictional universes - '''del spc from see also template''' - was putting listed category in AFD!) ''
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (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=1242830842 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 ==
*Bold translates to removing the space after the first pipe character. IIRC, the category had shown at the bottom of the Afd page before that, and it went away... but didn't really. When I got back to the page, there it was right where I first noticed it!


] from the past month (September 2024).


]
# 23:39, 10 June 2006 (hist) (diff) m ] (→List of fictional universes - assert noincludes around Early Middle Ages) (top)
# 23:36, 10 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Category:Maps showing the history of the Early Middle Ages (Equalize cats to project Europe & Commons) (top)
# 23:26, 10 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages (fx up cats and groups and export to equalize commons) (top)
===Phase two===
After seeing it again, I tried to figure out how to keep the integrity of the Afd file, and decided to try putting a nested pair of noinclude ... /noinclude around the file or file group. That did nothing I could observe. (This edit: ''assert noincludes around Early Middle Ages''.)


] '''Administrator changes'''
===The Plot thickens===
:] {{hlist|class=inline
While grabbing links writing this, I tried to use Further instead on the earlier version (before the includes)... It bombs out almost totally, only showing the one link, this first one giving the problem. I stayed in preview, so I don't know what it did with respect to the category manifestation.
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
I'm beginning to suspect someone has fiddled with something and the routines aren't robust anymore. Need a bullet proof vest! (or locked files!).
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Well, this is no big deal, but it's strange!
*] are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to ] (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with ] from October 8 to 14, a ] from October 22 to 24, and ] from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at ].
Maps are supposed to show up on that page carried down from the commons, not Afd sub-pages. I say this next thing with all seriousness and a straight face (suppressing a BSEG)&mdash; '''Have Fun chasing this one!''' (Ahem) <g> Best! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 00:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
* Following ], the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion ] to ]. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
* A ] is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an ] process.


] '''Arbitration'''
:The problem is that <nowiki>]</nowiki> is treated as <nowiki>]</nowiki> rather than <nowiki>]</nowiki>. The 'leading :' markup only works if the colon is the first character after the brackets... just a limitation of how it works. I don't think categories were considered when 'see also' and 'further' were set up... they are primarily used to link to other articles. The reason 'further' only showed the first item you listed is that it only takes one parameter... so you would need to input it as, <nowiki>{{further|], ], et cetera}}</nowiki>. --] 01:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
* An arbitration case regarding ] has been opened.
* Editors are invited to ''']''' to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until ''23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC)''.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
::Thanks for fix on {{tl|see also}}... don't see any changes! What if anything did you do? The category no longer shows the page... or am I seeing a manifestation of database lag of some type?
* If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put ] and ] on your watchlist, and help out when you can.


----
::Regardless... Can you bend some thought on '''how to bullet-proof''' that in see also type listing... I was thinking to adapt it as a template for a systematic cross-linking of 'branch-nodes' in the commons tree structure, and here where a ] would be a parent along with a cell to provide the <nowiki>] e.g. {{dummy|Old maps of Europe|Old maps of|France|Germany|Italy|...|Netherlands|... |Ukraine}}</nowiki> would output the centered title:<u>Old Maps of Europe</u>, and have under the list of category links built <u>'Old maps of'<u/>, as I said similar to the MBTA, or simplier {{tl|1632 series}} type of navigation templates.
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (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=1248355798 -->


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
::Right now there is no (?) 'short list' of templates that lists groups of links that allow easy traversal... e.g. simplest example to me is succession or succession box, but {{tl|MBTA}} is more like the model I've in mind for Images and Map cats on the commons... I was hoping to write some 'subroutine' template that takes the first article (parent cat) and the bare names (list in pipe seperated form) and builds lines using a derivative of see also... so the thing would have very wide scope THERE... and be fairly easy to use. Probably add a segment like one adds complexity to {{tl|succession box}}. But just a notion now, pending feedback from a couple folks I mentioned it to there. Just because cross links seem good to me, doesn't mean the commons culture will like the thought.


Hello,
::The rains up here have finally stopped for a few days and me yard is screaming for me to minimize wikiTime the next few days. In any event, Thanks again // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
:::No, I didn't make any changes to 'see also'. Was just explaining what was causing the issues you saw. It would be difficult to do so without breaking some of the numerous existing uses of the template. Making it 'bulletproof' for the category links you are looking for would best be accomplised by changing it to accept just the category names as parameters and then automatically apply the <nowiki>]</nowiki> to that. The navigation system you are talking about seems similar to {{]}}. That code could be adapted to build category links like your example. I'd suggest creating a separate template to cover this as the desired functionality is fairly specific. I'll put something along the lines of what I think you want at {{]}}. --] 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
==Thanks for helping with the LCCN template.==
{{The Template Barnstar|Thanks for improving the {{tl|LCCN}} template to further proper citation and accurate referencing. -- ], 2006-06-13]18:22z}}


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
== I'd like your take on this ==


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks for the fixes!


Kind Regards,
I've been 'bugged' by my ''hot button'' issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept ]. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.


]
My confidence is high that a structural <u>problem in presentation</u> is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's ''severity'' there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but ] ]ing. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: ''If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references?'' Advice? Best regards! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:It took me a while to figure out what you mean because I use the 'Classic' skin where the categories actually ''are'' displayed more prominently. Note that the appearance of all the skins is adjustable. I don't know if there is some reason behind the placement of the category links on Monobook, but note that all details of the skins can be changed either for the individual user (]), for the site (]), or all of Wikimedia (]). This even allows special handling of text - for instance I don't care for spoiler warnings (if I was afraid of something being 'spoiled' I wouldn't read the article) so I have a section in ] which causes the 'spoiler' class (set by the {{]}} template) to be hidden. Thus I would suggest discussing it on the CSS talk pages and/or taking a look at ] for examples of how to change it for your own configuration. --] 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== restore and move ] ? ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==
Hi, I noticed you restored and moved the Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board
Thanks! Can you restore and move ] as well? --] 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:Done. Sorry I missed that, had to run out for a bit right after I restored the main page. --] 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


] from the past month (October 2024).
:Tony Sidaway falsely accused me of recreating the conservative notice board as the politics noticeboard, and he also deleted the politics notice board and page protected it. I think this may have to be brought to WP:RFAR. --] 03:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


]
== Wikiproject User Page Design Committee ==


] '''Administrator changes'''
Hello. I am here to inform you that they now have the wikiproject up for mfd ]. You thoughts would be appreciated. ] 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
=={{tl|DYK-Refresh}} again==
:] ]
Hi Conrad, unfortunately the DYK refresh clock seems to be off the rails again. If you could wave your magic wand over the bits and pieces once more, that would be great. Many thanks. --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 08:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:For a bit more on this: ] (last section at the moment of this message in case teh relative link doesn't work)... at least to me it appears to be a problem with preview and to be intermittent because I was able to get the clock to update. but I've seen it in preview be as much as 36 hours off from what it should be. I run FireFox 1.5 on win XP. Thanks for your efforts with this template, much appreciated, it is VERY handy. '''<font color="green">]</font>]''']: ]/] 13:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


] '''Oversighter changes'''
== Template:Infobox generic ==
:] ]


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
What was your aim with ]? have you abandoned it? ] 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.


] '''Technical news'''
:Maybe it'd be better off in your userspace? ] 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}


] '''Arbitration'''
::To answer your questions with my own - Why exactly? What's up? I don't know what the 'issue' is here because you haven't made any non-interogatory statements. :]
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
::I had left this in template space because many times others will come along and start using/improving something once the concept is introduced... as, for example, the similar {{]}} which you made changes to previously. --] 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]


----
== Thank you for your support ==
{{center|{{flatlist|

* ]
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px olivedrab; background-color: turquoise;">
* ]
] Dear '''CBDunkerson''',<br>
* ]
Thank you ''very much'' for your support on ]. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an ]. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —]<font color=green>]</font>] 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)</div>
}}}}

<!--
== ] ==
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (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=1254686817 -->
See ], it's a bug with MOD. Your more expensive formula has the 59/00 problem, but that strikes less than 1 out of 20. I've no idea how likely it is, whenever I got garbage I thought it's a 59/00 case, but maybe it was the MOD bug. --&#160;] 11:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

==Template:Infobox Company==
Hi. From the template's history I believe you added the footnote parameter? If so could you explain what it's for? I don't think its mentioned anywhere and I don't think its being used. Thank you, ] 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:Many thanks for the response. Glad I asked you, rather than "accusing" you! Regards --] 22:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==Template:Findbox==
I believe that this template is not a good idea. Say someone has 10 userboxes and on average it is found in N/2 (with N being 18 currently). That is 90 ifexists calls, 10 ifs, and 21 transclusions. It is not unheard of for people to have ''hundreds'' of userboxes on a page--and given that Template:User {{{1}}} is checked next to last, and that is where many babelboxes and other boxes are located it isn't hard to imagine a userpage ending up with a thousand or more calls. There is also the problem of invalidating the caches of over 2000 userpages whenever a new archive is added. ] 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:To date I have not seen any detectable slowdown as a result of using or editing this template. My understanding is that the difference between one 'ifexists' call and thirty is neglible. Likewise, concerns about server load from 'meta-template' style transclusion have been described as inaccurate by the lead developer. Finally, in the grand scheme of things 2000 pages is not a significant number. All of these things are born out by observed performance. The 'Template:User {{{1}}}' check ''should'' be first, to get the version from the template namespace over any copies, but I've got it listed last currently because alot of 'deleted' userboxes have been replaced with notices indicating where the new version resides in user space... which would then come up instead of the actual box if the Template namespace were checked first. Eventually those notices should be cleared out and I will switch the order around. If dozens of people start creating 'archives' of just two or three boxes and adding them to this template, it winds up transcluded onto 30,000 pages, or other events transpire which make it begin to be a measurable drag on performance then there are various adjustments which can be made to address those issues. For instance, consolidating archives or limiting the scanned archives to those with over 50 boxes, protecting the template page to prevent frequent changes, et cetera. '''If''' an issue develops there are ways of dealing with it. --] 13:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could you please take a look at this one? It displays incorrectly for me (with the image under the top bar instead of above it) although the text is essentially the same as on the German and Spanish templates. I wonder whether there is a CSS issue involved that I don't understand. As you are one of the people who know their way around templates, I hope you can help. Happy editing, ] ] 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

== Info request ==

Excuse me, I need some info because I am not familiar with RfC's:
# In an RfC can I add comments to defend myself from accusation made in the "Outside views"?
# Why nobody is commenting my RfC?
# In the RfC page I read "When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page" what is in this case the appropriate talk page?
Thank you.
--] 07:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:Generally commenting on the comments of others in RfC's should be done on the RfC talk page. I suspect you are refering to Hipocrite's addition where he talks about 'those people' and accuses 'them' of various things worthy of indefinite blocking in his opinion - without actually citing any evidence that YOU have done such. I found that particularly noxious as well and have been considering how to respond myself. The lack of comment is almost certainly due to a pervasive problem on Misplaced Pages where admins and other 'respected users' can often get away with just about anything because other admins allow it and shout down those who object. I am mildly hopeful that in this case there will eventually be some scrutiny given to the issues, but the fact is that in my experience there is a serious problem with Misplaced Pages's capacity for self-examination. As to the 'appropriate talk page' - for a user conduct RfC that is usually the page of the user named, in this case MONGO, but the original article at the focus of the dispute and the pages of others involved (such as SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn, whom I have just added following MONGO's blocks on them) would also be reasonable places for notification. --] 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

::I think that you should mention (or link) in the page ] what were the "personal attacks and incivility (on both sides)": these are too relevant to be just summarized in that way.--] 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:::There'd be alot of stuff to include and standards for what constitutes a 'personal attack' are ''very'' subjective. The essential point was that MONGO should not have blocked given the existence of the ongoing dispute. --] 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask if it's within policy for a blocking admin to protect a blockees talkpage and remove the unblock request? I can't imagine how this is proper. Am I right thinking the last two actions should be reversed? ] 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:No it isn't sanctioned by policy. The whole point of the user talk page remaining editable while a user is blocked is in order to facilitate communication. TruthSeeker123 definitely earned a block for what the ] policy defines as 'sneaky vandalism' and violation of the ] policy, but the block should not have been placed by an involved admin, the indefinite duration is certainly questionable, and protecting the talk page smacks of attempting to avoid review by other admins. I've raised the 'protection' issue for discussion because the same group did this once previously and I'll follow up on the block. --] 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. ] 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Is this legal? ==

Please, take a look at edit. Is it legal?--] 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:It's not really a question of 'legal' or even 'policy', but it wasn't 'standard procedure'. I manually copied the section to the current archives. All the changes would have been available in the edit history in any case. Not a big deal. --] 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== MONGO ==

Conrad, it pains me to see people I admire and respect fighting on the admin noticeboard. MONGO seems to be on a bit of a short fuse, too, and there are trolls everywhere. ] 11:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not happy with the current situation either. MONGO seems generally a 'good guy', but I can't agree with what to me seem like claims that 'down is up and left is south' (i.e. 'content dispute' = 'vandalism by the other guy', 'edit warring' = 'not edit warring', 'personal attacks' = 'NPOV', et cetera) and more importantly, admin actions based on them. I don't doubt that he believes his views of these issues are correct and from that foundation has concluded that I am 'unjustifiably abusing him'. But... I'm equally convinced that I'm '''not''' wrong and that the nature of 'vandalism' and 'edit warring' are not minor issues to just 'let slide'. No question, I'm a stickler for ridiculously scrupulous 'fair play' even with the worst of users... and MONGO is trending more towards 'stomp the troublemakers until they bleed'. There are valid benefits to both, but I think the more even-handed approach (the one that ''doesn't'' involve calling your opponents "morons") produces better results in long running efforts... and I'm quite certain that Misplaced Pages's policies concur with me on that. I'm open to suggestions, though my current hope is that he'll stop 'stomping' things and it can just fade away. --] 13:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Yup. In the real world this would be an excuse for a watercooler discussion; hard to know how best to handle it here. I think maybe the POV-pushers have got to him a bit (I find that a lot). If only poeple could accept "no, we just don't do things that way" as an answer... I might send an email. ] 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Conrad, I really appreciate and support the hard work and good principle you are putting into this RfC. I think MONGO is a good person and I see an encouraging trend in the position he is taking, largely through your efforts. Keep up the good work! --] 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::While I think there have been some positive developments I'm afraid calling my attempts here "good work" is overly optimistic. Perhaps it will all work out for the best eventually, but the current situation is not at all what I hoped for. --] 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Uncivil behavior ==

CBD, please see my comment and note that it is direct retaliation for MONGO's uncivil comment . Thank you. ] 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO just reverted me. CBD, if you expect wikipedia to be NPOV then you should see to it that MONGO's ability to edit is blocked. And if I get blocked, I would certainly hope that you remove it. Thank you. ] 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please LMK what page to go to file an official complaint against that character. ] 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


MONGO is also breaking wiki policy by reverting and calling it a minor edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/Minor_edit#When_to_mark_an_edit_as_minor

''"Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor."''
] 07:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

--] 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now he's reverting information that I deleted on my own talk page. ] 07:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


== You've got a message on ] ==

You've got mail. :-)

==July is stocked with tips. Could you look them over please?==

I've filled July with a selection of tips from the tip authoring page, revisions of previously posted tips, some brand new ones, and some combinations. If you would be so kind as to look them over before they hit the mainstream Wikipedian audience, I'd really appreciate it. --] 17:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

== I don't get it ==

Hi. In MONGO's ] you wrote, "Pokipsy76 almost certainly deserved to be blocked" and several other people have expressed similar sentiments... but I can't see any basis for it. Can you explain '''why''' you think Pokipsy76 should have been blocked for & ? To me they don't seem to be excessive POV (indeed, "Some disagree" is more ''neutral'' POV than "Some conspiracy theorists disagree"), two reverts is not significant edit warring, and the other complaints MONGO brought in after the fact were all similarly minor content disagreements from 3+ weeks earlier on entirely different issues. So far as I can see there was no justification whatsoever for that block even if MONGO ''hadn't'' been the one to make it. Yet there seems to be near universal agreement to the contrary, so I'm hoping someone can explain it to me. What exactly did Pokipsy76 do that was blockworthy? The reason stated at the time, that he reverted an admin, ''really'' doesn't work for me. --] 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:I am referring to the overall complaint, not just the one or two edits that led to the block. His edits appear to me to be disruptive, on an overall basis. ] (]) 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

== Tip of the day project update ==

Just trying to get things better organized around there. Toward that end, I've created a task list template for the project. If all the members of the project placed it on their user page, we could all keep in touch more easily (with announcements, alerts, etc.). It, and the latest announcements can be found at:

]

--] 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

== Proposed Georgia Move ==
As a past participant in the ], I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at ]. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --] 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== Georgia ==
I am vey mystified from your message on ]. First of all, ]s are '''not''' Russian or even Slavic. According to Statistics ] gets more '''American''' readers than the state of Georgia. ] does not exist any more and I would advise you to watch more TV than making ] comments. Presidnet of Georgia and the president of the U.S. met two days ago and you can read this to get an idea about Georgia and the US relations. ].] 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry, I admit that it was harsh to use the word "ignorant". Trust me, you would react the same way if I called you a Mexican and told you that the article about the United States is mostly read on Spanish wikipedia. We have our own language and I don't see any necessity of using the Russian one. Georgian Wikipedua has more than 5,000 article and I edit articles on it. The first article, which I wrote on it was about ]] with my experience from ]. If you look at Jefferson's article on Russian wikipedia, you will see that Georgian one is whole lot bigger. In fact, most standardized tests like SATs in Georgia require the knowledge of English language than Russian language. If you are in business field, you realize it well that English laguage is an international language of business and communication and English speaking world is more than the U.S. and U.K. So, thanks god ] is not around any more and I welcome any type of advancement of information on English encyclopedia about Georgia, which simply was not allowed in the Soviet times. Not that I experienced it, I am 18 and I grew up in an independet, ] Georgia. Also, there is no way to evaluate Bush's and Saakashvili's meeting negative, because I think it was great and I admire ], but that's my personal political belief.] 16:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

==Help with image gallery==
Hi! You are listed as having expertise in image tagging, and I wonder if you could possibly find time to have a look at ] and help me figure out why only some of he images display for me (and presumably for others). If you can see a simple way to make it work better, please just go ahead and edit it. If you can't, can you suggest anyone else who might? Thanks a lot if you are able to help. --] 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for your help. I'm reluctant to turn off my ad blocking software to test that theory (all right, I admit it, I've forgotten how to!). As long as you are able to see all of the images all right I will stop worrying about it. --] 12:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== Hadn't gotten to that point yet ==

I hadn't gotten to removing the links yet, simply semiprotected the vandalized page...then responded to a comment on my talk page...who's the newbie?--] 11:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:The ip address / Free iran (presumably the same person) just began editing - hence 'newbie'. In any case, removing NPOV tags is not vandalism. I told both users not to edit war and suggested that page protection be requested. Semi-protection seems like a good idea, but full protection may be needed within a few days if discussion doesn't start. --] 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
::I already lifted the semi protection since it's been a little while since he edited the article and he started it as well, which I hadn't noticed until after I semi protected it.--] 12:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== My Block ==

Thanks, and just in time for a little editing :-) Nice to know people are checking the unblock page. ] 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== Category:Protected deleted pages ==

The backlog is for deleting those protected pages that has been protected for over two months unless recreated countless times. Thanks ] ] 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks, I'm trying again ==

I'm back, See second email before doing anything! <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:*He's baaaaaack. Can you clue me in on how to shut up the ({{tl|Ut}}) 'if statement' in (bad as a teenaged girl! Noisy!)

::If I knew how to give a Barnstar, I'd give you two.''' 'ACE!!!' and 'Ole Reliable'. '''Yippie, less typing! (I'm basically lazy, even if I didn't go to bed last night!) <g> All Star Game WikiBreak coming up!!! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:*btw - if someone deserves a Barnstar today, see {{ut|Petros471}} and refer the matter to whomever is empowered. // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

== Such a good clarification deserves a barnstar ==

] particularly well. -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)]]

::::I'll endorse that verdict. . How's this 'Top' strike you, since we're on the topic? {{w2|commons}} (no answer needed if ok). // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 23:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:You're most certainly welcome! I was just so impressed by it. :) -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== Help Me With This Guy ==

This IP Address (71.125.96.208) is constantly vandalizing the page ] with an inappropriate picture of Gary and co-eds. The image is obviously intended to make the subject look bad, and despite my efforts to stop this picture from appearing, it keeps coming back. Can you help me with this person?

Steve

== Gary Williams page ==

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with you that the repeated addition of the Gary Williams picture on his page is not vandalism. I'm not sure how much you follow college basketball so forgive me if I'm covering familiar ground, but that photograph was a hot topic on college basketball message boards last season as it was frequently posted on rival boards with the intention of mocking or humiliating Coach Williams. In contrast, it was quickly removed every time it was posted on any Maryland site because of the perception that it was humiliating. In addition, I would submit that the intent to vandalize can be ascertained by checking the edit history of the three offenders (possibly the same person from different locations?). To me, this is not an edit war at all, but rather is a clear case of no more than a couple of repeat offenders reverting to a humiliating image that is absolutely inappropriate for the Gary Williams article. Thanks for hearing me out. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
:You are probably right about the person's intent being to use an image which is unflattering to the subject of the article... but that isn't "vandalism" as defined by Misplaced Pages's ] on such. However, it comes close to the line and could certainly be called disruptive behaviour. Still, reverting such additions ''is'' edit warring... even repeatedly reverting things which clearly ''are'' vandalism under the policy is edit warring - just in that case edit warring which we tolerate if there was no other option. Requesting temporary page protection is preferable to continually reverting disputed additions. I'll unprotect the page after a couple of days and hopefully they will have moved on. If not, ask them to explain why they consider the image useful on the talk page. Try to work it out with them reasonably rather than saying 'rv vandalism' back and forth. If they can't / won't explain their reasons for including but continue doing so that's a failure to follow process / work together which is blockable... but if there haven't been any significant attempts to discuss the issue it isn't so clear cut. --] 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

== Changes at ] ==

Hi Conrad. Someone changed ] with and and several subsequent ones. What I think the difference is between the terms "Years of the Valar" and "Years of the Lamps" is given at ]. But the changes to ] seems to contradict this. Can you give these articles the once-over again, to check they aren't saying the wring things. Thanks. ] 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:I made the myself. Would you be able to check them? Thanks. ] 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with the changes you made and added a couple other small updates. --] 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

== Hi Dunkerson, please, please, please email me. Thank you. ==

Dear Dunkerson,

Can you please email me? My email address is MichaelDWolok@aol.com
I am having a hard time with Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

] 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

== Your opinion please ==

Hello CBD, I would appreciate your comments on me, in my RfC. When I read your comments in various places I understand what you are saying very clearly. I have been here now, just over a month, and if you have some time, even if only for a message on my talk-page, I would appreciate your comments. Thanks. -- ] 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Personal info ==

I have not posted any personal information about the user
*''Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. '']
The user in question has repeatedly edited using an IP account, and uploaded a file containing her IP, which means she voluntarily provided the information. Linking an IP to an editor based on editing activities is not revealing personal info, and is done routinely (for dozens of examples, see ]). Regarding the offsite activity, she was engaged in adding material that was written by the same IP number. I don't see how that is personal information either, and there's nothing about it in the policy. -] 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:Adding information which is known to be false is vandalism. That is exactly what this editor is accused of doing, a charge which she has never denied. -] 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:Since there is no need for them to prove the fraud, I've removed the links that go to pages which include email addresses. -] 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:See ], which she uploaded, for a file containing her IP address. -] 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== User:Jusforasecond ==

Did you discuss it with Nandasuka before you unblocked him? Now he's trying to build an RfA against Nandasuka for a ''valid'' block. ]|] 01:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just have less than good feelings about a user with a history of harrassing an African-American contributor and who is now edit warring on the Kwanzaa article. ]|] 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

I was initially skeptical, but I have to say I appreciate the way you handled the ] block/unblock issue. We all need reminders sometimes that blocks are for prevention, not punishment. Also, I heavily endorse the idea that a block, even on a past troublemaker, should always be well-justified. I've seen too many trumped-up blocks excused on the grounds that the blockee had previously caused trouble, and that's a bad thing. Thanks for being fair, explaining yourself well, and focusing entirely on damage control rather than getting obsessed over punishment. ] ] 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== Citation templates ==

Hi Conrad. I would appreciate if you could take the citation templates under your auspices. I know you are one of the best template specialists here, and you have been a great help during the WP:AUM wars, for which I was and am very thankful. Now {{tl|cite book}} (used on more than 15,000 pages), {{tl|cite web}}, {{tl|cite journal}}. {{tl|cite news}} are fully protected and the admins that drop by there don't always know what they are doing. Since I've done a lot there and tried to keep things running there it would be a shame if everything would go down there, after I (and others) have invested that much their wiki time (including you!). I intend to step back there a bit, not alone due to the fact that I can't edit anymore there, but it's nevertheless a good breaking point. I do not intend to leave Misplaced Pages completely, but I start getting some serious "all is done what I could do" feelings. So I probably won't be that much around as during the WP:AUM wars last years. Thanks for everything and whishing you all the best. --] 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

== Slang glossaries / glossary discussion ==
Thank you for your input on the glossary issue. You suggested that all glossaries be transwikied to Wiktionary. Such a plan has many drawbacks when looked at in greater detail. There are many aspects of glossaries and how they are used on Misplaced Pages which you did not consider. I've pointed some of these out in response to your post, and would be interested in reading your response to them. You can find them at: ]. --] 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

== Pat8722 ==

Please note that a request for arbitration has been made at ]. Your input would be most valuable. —] (]) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

==Your comments on ]==
Hi CBDunkerson, thank you for being one of the admins who declined to unblock User:Ebacherdom. He had made comments toward me that were uncivil (and hurtful, though I try my best not to take any situation online personally), so I reported him to AIV both because he continued to act this way after a t4-level warning and because I felt that a block would be a good time for him to cool down from the situation and hopefully reflect on his actions. (In case you didn't see the full timeline of events, I recapped it .)

However, I am surprised that you felt that my initial post on the user's talk page was unnecessarily provocative because I mentioned the word "vandalism." For the past several months, I have accumulated several thousand edits working on the Wikicalendar project. I estimate that in total, I revert or another editor reverts about 50 (though often more) unhelpful edits to sum of pages. The majority of these unhelpful edits are instances of editors, both anonymous and registered, adding their own birthday (or the birthday of someone they know) to the list, ignoring the tag on the bottom of each section that clearly states "Do not add people without Misplaced Pages articles to the list." Since this occurence is very common, I feel that it is necessary to let the user know not to do this, as a simple revert might never be checked upon again by the user. For this edit, I either give a t1 (good faith notice that an edit has been deemed unhelpful and removed), or I post a friendly note clarifying this on the user's talk page; you can see an example ]. I feel that a bright orange message box appearing on the top of every subsequent page that the user views is more compelling than a revert which the user may or may not ever see. The vast majority of users see this note and do not repeat their action; the small percentage who continually add their own birthday, etc. to the Wikicalendar pages after this note get warnings.

Now that I've written a basic background on the project, my next point is that these lists of births and deaths will never be complete. I mainly focus on maintaining the pages, but a few kindly editors (User:Clay4President and User:Igoulet to name two frequent ones) devote time to expanding the lists so that they are both more complete and more representative of the spread of biographical articles on Misplaced Pages. When someone removes a valid name from the list (and by valid, I mean that the person was indeed born on that day, according to his or her article, and that he or she has a Misplaced Pages article devoted to him or her), it is not helpful to the page or the project because it erases the good work of another editor and makes the page less complete than it was. In Ebacherdom's sake, he removed the entry because he thought that person was, using the words he used in the edit summary of his second revert, "non-notable individual, should not be included," (note that Ebacherdom did not use an edit summary the first time he removed the name). I assumed good faith in my initial message on his talk page, explaining the policy on the Wikicalendar pages, though when he re-removed the valid entry from ], it seems unlikely that he was trying to act in the best interest of the page and make a helpful edit. It seems that it was more of a bias on his part (deciding whether someone is notable or not based on his own judgement, regardless of Misplaced Pages notability policy), which is not in accordance with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, which as a registered user for over two years, I'm sure he's come across in the past.

If an editor removes the name of ] from ], for example, I think another editor would take the same course of action as I did, or even start giving out vandalism warnings. For cases like this or in the case that the user has a history of vandalism, an editor might give out a test2a, which states "Please do not remove content from Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism." While many would agree that Lincoln's contributions to American society were more "notable" or will have a greater impact in the future than those of ], the principle, in my opinion, is the same. Both meet ] standards, so both have Misplaced Pages articles. While good faith should be assumed for all editors and special consideration given to new or inexperienced editors (I think Ebacherdom could only of those two be considered inexperienced given the age of his account and the number of edits he's racked up in that time), I don't think noting on someone's userpage in a friendly note that removal of valid content from a Misplaced Pages article can be considered vandalism is premature or particularly incorrect. Anyway, thanks for your attention, and even if you don't agree with my point, I still respect your opinion and welcome your comments. I look forward to future communication with you. ] 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Re: User Fabricationary Incident ==

CBD:

Thank you for being one of the only people willing to take a look at the recent situation with an open mind. I appreciate greatly the fact that you posted your views both with me and with the individual who I was quarrelling with ]. Because you agree with me that the vandalism warnings that were initially issued to me are questionable at best (both issued by fabricationary, and within 10 minutes of one another) I have made my best effot to keep them visible to interested parties while removing them from the very top of my talk page. I needed to do an annual talk page archive, and now was as good a time as any to clean things up so that my talk page remains a useful area for discussion.

Again, I want to thank you for your involvement in this matter. I know I acted out more than I should, but this was mostly the result of a mistaken understanding on my part as well as an individual who was not acting on good faith (IMO) and more interested in getting my goat than actually attempting to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Knowing that you heard me fairly allows me to continue to feel good about Misplaced Pages in general, and I want to know that for restoring my faith in the good faith of other individuals here, you have my gratitude.

Thanks Again! ] 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Seeking programmer input ==

We need the advice of a programmer at ]. Is the project practical? What are the limitations? Are there structural or system considerations? What options/opportunities are we overlooking? How would the current proposal be implemented? 'Thought it would be best to get some techie help on this from the start, before we blow this out for discussion to the wider community. --] 02:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Middle earth ==
I could upload the images here, though I had also thought using maps based on the ] currently on wikipedia. I was hoping before that a simplified map could be released under the gfdl, but since its going to have to be fair use, then it may as well use a more detailed map. --]<small>]</small> 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== iso 15924 ==

Hi coding profi, your help needed at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template_talk:Infobox_WS&diff=69869143&oldid=62080587 ] ] 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
- thank you :-) ] ] 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


==]==
Hello, Hello,


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].


Take the survey ''''''.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
== my Recall endorsement ==


]
re: ] &mdash; Please consider yourself asked to re-enlist! Haven't got to your answering email yet&mdash;nor my dinner now 2.3 hours cold! Cheers! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
;Ooopsie!!!
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
]... just in case it wasn't obvious! Cheers! // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
::Heh. No problems. I wasn't sure what you meant, but your note got me to look at the page and find out about the CfD ongoing there... so it worked out well. :] --] 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 10:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== User_talk:Dwain ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
While I respect your comment, other administrators had told me blanking a userpage with warnings was vandalism and had directed me to ].
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
:'''Talk page vandalism'''
<div class="ivmbox-text">
::''Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove <b>and archive comments</b> at their discretion. However, removing legitimate warnings, especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior even though it is not specifically a form of vandalism. Removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration.''
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
That is the reason I had said anything. The user had removed valid complaints only to replace them with glowing remarks from another account they merged together. The instant that people added any comments that were negative or warned the user of misconduct, they were removed. On a related note, the user had not archived anything. I had to make the archive for him which he blanked anyway. Now you can understand, it wasn't in bad faith that I did this. --] <sup>(])</sup> 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Could you have a look at this please? ==


</div>
Hello, I understand you are an administrator and in that capacity I'd like you to please have a look at the following three topics on my talk page: , and , especially the first and last. This user, Travb has been posting diatribes and patronizing comments elsewhere too. Would it be appropriate to simply remove these topics or to archive them? I am not sure about the policy regarding talk pages. Thank you, ] 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
== Template /doc pattern ==


] from the past month (November 2024).
See ]. I made an edit link. --] 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:That works for me. Some users don't have 'section editing' enabled so having a 'hard-coded' link to the documentation sub-page makes sense. --] 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::Hmm. Just wondering: do you see section edit links on ]? I have them enabled but they don't show up there for me. --] 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Answering myself: Conrad is an admin and ] is protected. I'm not an admin, so I can't edit ]. But I could edit ], which is not protected. But the display of the edit links of sections is obviously disabled because of the protected page. Counterexample: ] (is not protected, so I do have the section edit links, even though the doc is transcluded). --] 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Hmmm, hadn't thought of that... even though the section of the page you would be editing is not protected the edit links are suppressed because the page is protected. So hard-coded edit links are definitely going to be the way to go. --] 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


]
==]==
Hello,


] '''Administrator changes'''
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
==Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
{{user|GoldToeMarionette}} had a ] inappropriately completed on their account by {{user|Jayjg}} and {{user|Hall Monitor}} blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Misplaced Pages policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
Other steps in ] have been tried
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


] '''Arbitration'''
: Comments on RFCU itself
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
: Other Admins contacted
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (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=1259680487 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
: Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply


] from the past month (December 2024).
: GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. ] ]


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
] notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an . The account strictly followed the ] guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. ] removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted ] ] that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete."
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
*
:] ]
*
:] {{hlist|class=inline
*
|]
*
|]
*
}}
*
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Misplaced Pages Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. ] 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
:Thanks for your post. The account was not created to push the envelope. The line stating that the account was a sockpuppet was only placed there after the account was put up for a CheckUser. The terminology used was unfortunate, as it should only have been called a multiple account. GoldToeMarionette was simply created to make posts to dissaociate the content issue from the PoolGuy account which was receiving a significant amount of hostile negative attention. There was no intention to push any envelope or to violate any policy (which ultimately did not occur, which is why I am working to resolve it).
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
:I am sorry that you did not look at anything before ArbCom. ArbCom was silent on the posts of GoldToeMarionette and PoolGuy, which is unfortunate because that is where this issue lies. ArbCom simply stated that PoolGuy must edit from one account, which was done until someone decided to railroad a community ban, despite there being no policy violation.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
:You asked what I would expect an Admin to do in the case of a new user making posts in compliance with policy. Well, I would expect that if someone did not like the action, they would post a message on the talk page asking for the action to cease, then see if that was effective. Any further administrative action is unwarranted absent a policy violation. I think Admins should treat other users with respect, aggressive blocking does not do that.
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:You asked what discussing interpretations of policies and guidelines and procedures accomplishes. Well, hopefully it will lead to a small change in culture where those vested with authority will actually use it to enforce established policies and guidelines, rather than what each individual Admin does not like. I am a mild user that did something a couple Admins didn't like. Rather than discussing the issue and the policy implications, they thought blocking would just make me go away. I like Misplaced Pages (except for the abuse of Admin powers) and think it would be a good idea for Admins to work on trying to include people in the project and make them better Wikipedians rather than blocking an account when they see something they personally don't like. The community should be made up of many different opinions and means of doing something. It should not be run as a police state where a select group promotes more people who think like themselves to have special authority that is used to quell dissenting thought and process. Enforcing the rules of the community is fine, but what happened in this circumstance is someone taking administrative action against something that was not wrong, per the community rules. I think you can agree that should not take place. Having the authority does not mean it should be weilded unabashedly.
* 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'''
:I actually think dwelling on this issue will eventual do some good. I can't imagine that out of several hundred Admins there is not one who can understand these very simple issues of those with authority needing to follow the rules of the community. I am patient, so I can afford to spend time looking for them. Hopefully, you will turn out to be the one who will understand this issue. ] 03:45, 22 August 2006 (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}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
::While I agree that there are problems with the direction that some of the admin community have taken (what I might describe as expediency over even-handedness) I don't think your approach is at all likely to change that. Rather the opposite. Above you have recast several things 'I asked' very differently than I stated them and in past discussions I have read seem to go to extreme lengths in trying to claim some policy or guideline sanctions your actions... while ignoring others which do not. You ''are'' restricted to one account by the ArbCom. You ''have'' been changing your account and editing under other names in violation of that stricture. You can't (convincingly) claim protection of policy while simultaneously breaking it... especially when you are performing acts which are at the least questionable/disputed. What do you want to '''do''' on Misplaced Pages? Is there some topic / task you want to contribute to? And if so... why not do that instead of arguing whether or not there were sufficient grounds to perform a check-user request on you? It '''is''' entirely possible to contribute in ways that ''don't'' make people suspicious of you. --] 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
:::CBD - Standard procedure is to remove the edits of the PoolGuy Socks on sight. He has spammed his manifesto on nearly every admin, and to ANI numerous times. Arbcom has limited him to one account no sockpuppets, and there is a well established precedent for removing the disruptive edits of his socks. If you wish to reply fine, but it will get you nowhere. ] | ] 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|

* ]
== Greek alphabet ==
* ]

* ]
I get errors when adding iso15924 at ]. ] ] 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
}}}}

<!--
] - I fixed it. Made the param like the params at the top. IMO now there will be allways lines, even if empty. Before i did the fixes the code was shown i same line as the preceding stuff (sisters or parets, depended on lang IIRC). ] ] 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
:Whupps, see what I missed now. Sorry about that. --] 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

I created ] ] ] 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:User_iso15924/category-intro&diff=71949679&oldid=71948606

if-else stuff would be needed. The ] is used at the top of every category. It should set the parent categories depending on 1=script 2=knowledge level. ] ] 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted, I am really pissed off. Several hours of working and a wild admin just deletes the stuff. ] ] 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! ] ] 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

== I am wikibee plz help me ==

Hi,

I am a wikibee (wiki+newbie=wikibee). I would like to have my own mediawiki installed. It would be named AreWiki (As far as I know Misplaced Pages is running on MediaWiki). I wanted to have same templates available on wikipedia working on my wiki as well. I tried to just copy / paste template pages, but it was v.tedious and i made often mistakes. Then I tried to use the Special:Export/Import. However there were some problems with xml - when i have exported a template and then just changed occurence of wikipedia into AreWiki I was not able to import it into my wiki (i think maybe it is problem with Unicode, UTF... but am not sure).

In short I would like to hve maintenance and text formatting templates (just to automate some tasks) availalbe on my wiki - how to do this?

Thx in advance and if there is any prize or voting for best admin just let me know.

] 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== If you can't beat 'em, join 'em ==

Quiddity was spotting me wherever I turned up, so sockpuppetry was futile. So I've shrugged my shoulders and have accepted him as a team mate rather than viewing him as a tail. We're actually getting along now, if you can believe it.

The main reason I'm contacting you, though, has to do with a project I've been working on: the page formatting on Misplaced Pages's main reference pages. Please take a look. The edit buttons are opening the template page '''{{tl|Reference page section}}'''. Basically, in order to get a box around each section, I was using each subsequent template to close the section that came before it. Here are the links to the reference pages:


{{Reference pages (header bar)}}

"Basic topics" lacks the template, and has the code embedded in its text (to customize the font-size to match the titles of the other ref pages). We haven't had a problem with this page because the section edit buttons are turned off. "Fields of study" and "A-Z index" don't include the template at all.

I've temporariliy turned off the section edit buttons in "Topics", above, because the edit boxes were coming up blank. In "Tables" the behavior is even freakier. --] 06:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help in the past (it seemed more like wizardry, actually), and I look forward to seeing whatever miracles you may perform this time around.

Sincerely,

--] 06:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (aka Go for it!, Go for it, Nexus Seven, True Genius, Polar Deluge, The Tipster, etc. etc.).

== Template:Shortcut hack ==

What is the purpose of the bizarre template code on {{tl|shortcut}} (wrapping it in {{{1)? <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] &bull; ]</span> 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:Okay, but the {{{1 wrapper should be around the inclusion of the template, not in the template itself, otherwise you end up with <nowiki>{{shortcut|}}</nowiki> calls which are a unnecessary:
<pre>{{#if: {{{1|}}} | {{shortcut|{{{1}}}}} }}</pre>
:How many templates pass a parameter to shortcut like this, so I can fix them? <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] &bull; ]</span> 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

== Trusted Site ==

Hi there, I'm kinda new to this wiki thing so I apologize if this question is a little absurd to you, and yyou don't need to answer it. Recently I have tried to convince my friend that wiki is actually a safe source to use. He thinks that any person can just go ahead and vandalize any page and it stays like that. Now I told them about anti-vandal bots etc. I also heard from him that recently like 100 students got all F's because of info they got from wiki. Now I doubt that story is true, but how can I show my friend to trust wikipedia?

== Admin votes for State Route Naming Conventions poll ==

Your vote is requested at the ]. As one of the admins, you have until 23:59 UTC on September 4, 2006 to cast your vote for one of the naming conventions for state highways. Thank you for your participation. --Willy ] (] - ]) 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

==User talk:Ryulong==
Why is ] protected? I want to contact this user! I thought this wasn't even allowed! Regards, ] 05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

==Highways==
I have responded at ]. --] (] - ]) 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:I've replied again with an example. --] (] - ]) 12:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== cats for deletion ==

need your help at ]

pschemp just set up something for deletion without talking. ] is heavily populated. But proably all the people in this cat are not aware of the deletion. ] ] 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==Poll==
I am extremely disappointed that you have decided to accuse me of biasing the poll, whereas my goal from Day One was to make it as unbiased as possible. You can read my defense on ]. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== Sorry to bother you again ==

Hello again, CB! Remember {{tl|Infobox WS}}? I was wondering if it would be possible to make only the first word under the "Type" variable count. For example, if I write

|type=<nowiki>]</nowiki> with syllabic elements

can the color for "Logographic" only show up, instead of it being white? I've been doing some work with templates but I can't handle this advanced stuff like you can. ] (]·]·]) 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Ikiroid. In this case what you are trying to do actually isn't possible directly. Misplaced Pages doesn't have any functionality for isolating portions of a string with the exception of a few tricks for wikilinks only (e.g. <nowiki>]</nowiki> knows to ignore the parenthetical and just shows ]). You could simulate something like this by having a 'type' parameter and a 'type description' which is displayed right after it. So, in this case, type=] and typedesc=with syllabic elements. Alternatively, if there are only going to be a few variations like this it could be added to the #switch so '] with syllabic elements' would be a recognized text for producing the red color. I'll implement that for now, but if there are going to be ''alot'' of variations then the 'type and typedesc' method might be better. --] 08:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::CB, I like your idea for an optional "type description" parameter. I was thinking of calling it "typedesc." I tried to add it in, but I didn't do it because A) It was your idea, so you should get credit, and B) I didn't know where to add <nowiki>{{{typedesc}}}</nowiki> in the code so it would be transcluded next to <nowiki>{{{type}}}</nowiki> without disrupting the color code. Do you think you could add in a "typedesc" parameter, just like how you described it above? ] (]·]·]) 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Ikiroid. I made an update for the 'typedesc' parameter. Since we only want to use it for display we can bypass the color code entirely and only include it on the line where the type is actually displayed. --] 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::I just used it in ], it works great! Thank you! I'll try adding it to other Writing systems with exceptions. By the way, I put my two cents in into the ipa-0 DRV. ] (]·]·]) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

==State highways==
I've made ] as you suggested. --] (] - ]) 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== ipa-0 ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Writing_systems&diff=73575325&oldid=71947496
] ] 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Kayah Li ==

*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kayah_Li&oldid=73584457 ] ] 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kayah_Li&diff=73598076&oldid=73597685 ] ] 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Kayah Li Part deux ==
Chairboy, your repeated statements that the article was 'too short' to pass A1 are incorrect. There is no 'size limit'. To actually '''quote''' CSD A1 "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." The simple statement that 'Kayah Li is a writing system used by the Kayah' people defines the context of what it is completely and should not have been deleted. That all by itself is a reasonable stub not unlike thousands of others which are now articles several pages long. Look at the first edits of various articles and you will see that this is common practice... and thus people are generally discouraged from deleting articles immediately after their creation. While I'd call this a 'misunderstanding of the criteria' rather than "admin right abuse" I do have to wonder why you couldn't have just re-created it and seen what happened. --] 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:Hi CBDunkerson! Actually, I understand CSD A1 very well, and my decision to delete it was based on the judgement call that the content lacked sufficient context. I have consensus with the other admins with whom I consulted on this, so I'm not coming in from left field on this. Second, I _did_ restore the content almost immediately to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand it appropriately. The user chose not to. Please familiarize yourself with the case before passing judgement, we're (Misplaced Pages) all in this together. - ]</small> (]) 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::I would like a list of the admins Chairboy claims to have consensus with in this case. ] ] 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Tobias, I understand that you feel wronged and I feel your frustration. You have made some good contributions in the past, I hope that you will choose to use this experience as an opportunity to improve your future edits. I also hope that you will not succumb to the temptation to wikistalk me with the hope of getting some "revenge", that's not in the spirit of the project. If you would like to constructively criticize my actions, I encourage you to make use of the existing RfC processes. Thanks! - ]</small> (]) 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::::what is your stalking blabla about? The only stalkers I am aware of are Pschemp and to some extend Lar. Your statements about the minor quality of my edits does not belong to the discussion of your policy violation. The existing RfC process could not be started until a second person tried to resolve the dispute with you. Furthermore the process looked very complicated too me. ] ] 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Could you explain what you mean about "minor quality" of edits? I don't think I've disparaged your edit history, but if I'm mistaken, please provide a diff. The RfC process _is_ complicated, but I'd be happy to assist you in putting something together if you feel it would improve the quality of the project. As an admin, I rely on proper interpretation of the project policies and community consensus to do my job, and as such am more than willing to put myself in the spotlight if that's what is needed. You immediately assumed that my deletion was 'admin abuse'. While I respect your right to that opinion, I disagree, but if you would like the community to pass judgement, then we should go through proper channels. - ]</small> (]) 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Pschemp ==

you see this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Nyanga-li_language

I assume Pschemp just went through my hist to speedy delete all small stubs I created. ] ] 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yes of course you would since you mostly assume bad faith even when people try to help you. Dragonfly67 unblocked you and you still responded by calling his comments personal attacks. ] | ] 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::His comments ''were'' personal attacks or, since people define that vastly differently, at the least quite uncivil... as I think would be obvious to anyone. --19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Template:User ipa-0 ==

] has deleted it again. I'll notify him/her.--] 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:The lack of a tag was an oversight as i was listing lots of things. IF you think the deletion debate was invalid, you should post this to DRV, not just undelete. ] | ] 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::What if? No tag = not process = not valid. There is no need to DRV obvious mistakes, but since you object I'll do so rather than continuing the wheel war. --] 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for trying to remind everyone that admins need to be civil and reasonable. You're exactly right- just because the target of admin abuse is an unpopular user doesn't justify the misuse of admin tools. I doubt there's anything to be done that could actually change the culture here, but I'm glad somebody's at least trying. I'm frequently astounded at the inappropriate behavior many editors seem willing to tolerate from admins. ] ] 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks, but these confrontations always seem to have as much downside as benefit. I think that eventually there will have to be some sort of 'admin accountability to the community'. The conflict until then is sadly inevitable, but sometimes the reminder helps despite all the anger it generates. I suppose I just don't like pileons or subjective determinations of when behavioural standards do and do not apply. --] 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::I just wanted to add my thanks, too. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::Accountability? you mean like ]? I think we may have to agree to disagree about this user, I think they have not been civil at all, regardless of admin actions. That said, I think there is merit in my letting some other admin deal with it next time. The problem is that every admin that this user interacts with eventually makes this user's animus list. (and thus is disqualified?) Fortunately we have a lot of admins but it seems a bad practice. ++]: ]/] 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, I mean like that. So long as administrators ''can'' mistreat the community with relative impunity... they inevitably will. No, Tobias has not been civil, but he isn't alone in that and it isn't the only problem. As to "every admin"... I've dealt with Tobias off and on for months and don't seem to be on his 'animus list'. When he complained about changes I made (at user request) to one template which caused another I didn't know about to stop working... I ''apologized'' and fixed the other template. Being helpful and all that. I just don't see where it is at all necessary to delete stubs which give a very clear explanation of the topic. It seems needlessly and ''obviously'' inflammatory. What ''good'' purpose is being served by deleting perfectly valid stubs on encyclopedic topics right after they are created? It's a ridiculous stretch of the speedy deletion criteria which serves to annoy people rather than actually benefiting the encyclopedia in any way.
:::Though... all that being said, I believe the other two comments above are in regards to a completely different incident/user. :] --] 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note I've responded to the concerns on ANI. And I hope I have been civil. Feel free to discuss 1-1 if you so wish. Thanks, ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think I'm so awful because I blocked a troll, please, go ahead and just say I shouldn't be an admin. I'm in the category for a reason. --] 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Admin abuse?" What a load of rubbish. It's a sad state of affairs when a person who has been trolling for months ups the ante with his most ambitious bit of trolling yet, and rather than being blocked for it, he actually suckers administrators into sticking up for him. Since when was it okay to take the side of a troll over a valuable admin? I'd really like to know. And I'm sick of seeing the exact same people doing it over and over, all the while we're losing good editors who don't enjoy working in an environment where trolls are given ''more'' respect than they are. --] 00:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Calm down Cyde. If W.marsh decides to leave, then this is up to him. No need to get heated here. Your representation of what happened is clearly wrong. --] 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Cyde is right, more later, but I am concerned about the notion that contributions give you a free pass, or that if an admin is a little bit uncivil it gives the other party a free pass in some people's eyes. That's just wrong. It's not about wmarsh leaving, it's about this culture that seems to value disruptive editors more than hard working admins. ++]: ]/] 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::Yes. It is about admin culture. Lar, your representation is wrong as well. If you can't stand some discussion about blocking Wikipedians, then don't block. Don't make this a thing about whether someone is more valuable than another. We have standards here that apply to all. --] 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:"If you think I'm so awful"... which would be apparent from when I said, "It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'." ??
:"...please, go ahead and just say I shouldn't be an admin"... over one action which I disagree with? Why? Cyde does five things I disagree with a week and I ''supported'' his RfA. :]
:W.marsh you seem to be viewing this disagreement in ways wholly different than I intend. I don't think you should be de-sysoped or RfC'd or... ''anything''. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I 'value him more than you' or 'like trolls' as you have been saying. It means I don't think a one week block was warranted and I oppose personal attacks as a matter of course. If Jimbo were to go after someone and call them a troll and block them for something I thought unjustified I would disagree with him the same way... indeed, I actually did in the 'pedophile userbox' incident. Before I became an admin. He reversed the block too. No doubt it's my winning personality, right? --] 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Cyde, "Since when was it okay to take the side of a troll over a valuable admin?". The question embodies everything I think wrong with Misplaced Pages admin culture. You, like W.marsh, are viewing it as a judgement of the two individuals... which is wholly alien to my way of thinking. Your assumption that the side of the "valuable admin" must '''always''' be taken over the "troll" is abhorrent to me. I look at the situation... not the people involved in it. In this situation I see a bunch of people violating ] by calling someone a "troll" over and over again... that they happen to all be admins doesn't make that problem go away. They shouldn't be doing it and I say so. This also doesn't mean that I 'hate them' or want them desysoped or any such thing. It means I want them to behave in accordance with Misplaced Pages standards... not name-calling which would get a regular user blocked. --] 01:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::For the record, CBD, I completely agree with you. There will always be administrators who think a "valuable admin"'s judgement is correct ''because'' he is a valuable admin, and the other user is "just a troll". Personal attacks, like calling someone a troll, are ''always'' against Misplaced Pages policy. When you tell this "valuable admin" he is a good administrator, but in your opinion, he made a wrong call, suddenly it gets twisted into "you're a bad admin, and I don't value your work", which doesn't address any of the concerns we originally raised, and directs the attention away from the original question: did posting that silly RFA cause a disturbance big enough to warrant an over-one-week long block, without the warning we normally even give to IP vandals? On a first offense? When WP:BLOCK policy states blocks for disruption start at 24 hours? I don't believe it did. Best, <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::

== Wheel Warring ==

I'm glad you think that wheel warring is wrong, and I look forward to seeing you reduce the number of administrative actions that you reverse. As for the instant situation, I think that W.Marsh's reversing himself was a bit of a tantrum. He was right the first time, as was Binguyen, and I don't really consider undoing the results of his hasty decision to be wheel warring. ] 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Reversing administrator actions is not wheel-warring. We do it all the time and should. Taking administrator actions you know are disputed (whether reversing or initiating) is wheel-warring. Regardless of whether W.marsh's removal of his block was a "tantrum" as you say or not... his initial block was itself wheel-warring... and even had it not been, your re-instatement of a block you knew to be disputed would ''still'' be wheel-warring. The point is to not use your admin buttons to enforce your viewpoint when you know there are going to be admin objections / no consensus has been established. --] 14:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

==Please help==
Dear Mr. Dunkerson,
Please help me to move ] to ].], ], ], ], ]. CIA, National Geographics and all these sources call it ] and also other well known encyclopedias such as Brittanica and Encarta. Administrator Khoikhoi is biased. You can see my discussion on his talk page. Please help me out. ] 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== DYK Refresh ==

I found the time elapsed line extremely useful. Why did you ? - ]|] 12:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

== Possible need for adjudication in ] ==

Hi. This note is a heads up that you might be called to help adjudicate/decide how to apply PI to part 1 of the Highways naming poll. As you know all of us judging admins selected P1, but it turns out that there is a question of applicability. You should read the threads yourself, but my summarization is as follows. Some states are not currently in conformance with P1, and do not want to change if they don't have to. They are saying that P1 only applies in cases where there was controversy, and if the state's road project/key users are with staying put, and if they set up redirects for all the articles so that P1 style searches find the articles, that ought to be enough. (in some cases maybe they'll switch later if they want to)

There seems to be agreement that if a state is in contention about conventions, P1 will be imposed, but disagreement about what "in contention" is. In particular, NJ participants are split about whether they are or are not in contention. I gave them all (arbitrarily, unfairly, etc, etc, because I'm being a bit of a hardass to keep things moving) until about an hour from now to come to consensus voluntarily or else... the or else is that we would canvass, decide, and impose our choice. Right now my read is that it may be less contentious overall to allow modified P1, that is, allow states that don't want to switch, the option not to do so (as long as redirects exist) either "right away" or "ever"... So please get ready to participate, I think we do it as another poll perhaps. I'll seek those of you on IRC out later, but probably we need to do the actual voting on wiki.

As a reminder here's the poll for part 1: ] and sure enough it says nothing about what states it applies to (only that two states get an exemption) ++]: ]/] 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:Your input is requested ]. I had hoped the participants might arrive at a consensus but they have not yet. They still could do so before we finish! Please comment or reshape the process if it's not to your liking, as well as refine my statement of the questions, and then comment as you see fit. Thanks. ++]: ]/] 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==Hauke==
Was determined to be a meatpuppet at the very least. His first ever edit was to request Tobias being unblocked. It is extrememly suspicisous that he came to life exactly one hour after Tobias was blocked this week the first time and requested an unblock after months of inactivity, then went dormant again until Lar's latest block. This is not a good faith account. BTW, Tobias is still calling me a liar for trying to be nice to him. I haven't edited his page in days, but this refusal to assume good faith about anyone and insist that I was trying to mislead people no matter what anyone says is really tiresome. Since you're his friend why don't you try to get him to move on to something more productive. ] | ] 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:Note that Tobias's talk page has now been protected... ++]: ]/] 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Personal attacks? ==

Hi CBD,
In your recent edit to Tobias's talk, you stated that admins were making personal attacks on him. Can you please provide examples? This is an extraordinary claim that requires some diffs. - ]</small> (]) 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:
:
:
:
::Take your pick. --] 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Three of your four examples are definately not NPA, the closest is the first but even that describes him as acting "like" a petulant child. I think it would be appropriate for you to immediately review ] as you have demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of what constitutes a personal attack and what doesn't. This, coupled with your aggressive defense of bad faith editors is very concerning. - ]</small> (]) 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I would make the same suggestion in regards to reading ] to you. Those ''aren't'' "accusatory comments" or "negative personal comments"? They are at least as bad as comments of Tobias's which have been called personal attacks by the very people making them. And BTW... "bad faith editors"... '''also''' a personal attack. Not to mention ''completely'' untrue in this case. Tobias is clearly a ''good faith'' editor. Show me one instance where he vandalized an article or otherwise edited in 'bad faith'. He does engage in incivility and personal attacks when he gets angry, but he is ''hardly'' alone in that. --] 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::With respect, your interpretation of the applicable guidelines does not appear to match the community consensus. Tobias has repeatedly accused people of abuse, lying, and more. If you feel that is not bad faith, then I question your definition of the term. - ]</small> (]) 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::My definition of acting in 'bad faith', which I believe is quite standard, is ' ''deliberately'' false or with the ''intention'' to harm or disrupt'. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that Tobias ''believes'' that those people have committed "abuse, lying, and more". His accusations are thus incivil, but not bad faith. Nor did you accuse him of bad faith in discussions... but in being a "bad faith editor". Which is totally unwarranted as even his most dedicated detractors have never alleged that his encyclopedia contributions are anything but well-intentioned. As to 'community consensus'... I hope very much that you are mistaken, but enough admins ''do'' advocate this 'it is not incivil if WE say it' (admittedly, '''my''' characterization of the viewpoint) that I think it is time we put it to the test so as to avoid disagreements like this in the future. --] 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Discussion on ANI ==

Hi, I've been following your recent discussion on the administrators noticeboard and I have agreed with you throughout. Admin incivility is far worse than incivility by normal editors, because it brings with is the tacit support of the community. That is, editors who encounter an uncivil admin may feel as if the entire community is persecuting them, since "if this person is an admin he must speak for the community". Another dangerous trend that Cyde, albeit inadvertantly, pointed out is admin-banding behavior, the idea that admins should support other admins generally or automatically. This is not a good idea and divisive in the truest sense of the word. For these reasons I commend you on your (apparently thankless) efforts. I also thought you might be interested in a ] of the blocking policy I have proposed. I personally think it would go a long way towards preventing a lot of the editor-admin drama around here, but I would love to hear your thoughts. So, just voicing my support, don't lose it yet CBD! &mdash;] 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Hi and thanks. Yes, I've had several conversations about the whole 'why would you support that bad nasty user over the valued admin?' mindset lately. It isn't about supporting people... or shouldn't be. I look at the actions and don't care who made them. The added perceived impact of admin actions which you bring up is a good point. I commented on the BP talk page though I fear it was a bit rambling. Tired and off to sleep now. See you around. --] 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Seconded, by the way. If I could track down a "Keep on keepin' on" barnstar, I'd likely do it. You're, of course, 110% right, and I'm not shocked that you're being raked over the coals for it. --] <small>]</small> 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

== CURRENTHOUR ==

== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:CURRENTHOUR}} ==

] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!-- Tfdnotice --> ] 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

==Hauke==
Hi, Conrad! Regarding , could you, please, refer me to the appropriate page? I am having trouble locating the RFCU you mentioned. Thanks!&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:''That'' RFCU, eh? I was under impression there was another one. Since there isn't, and the results of this one are pretty clear, I'll be unblocking both accounts&mdash;there is no good reason to permablock two innocent individuals, although I very much doubt they are going to return to editing after such a nice welcome we gave them. Thanks, Conrad.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::Note that as I understand policy,if users are acting like sock or meatpuppets (or acting like the same user) it doesn't matter *what( the CU results are, if the action is circumventing a block, the other users are blockable as well. I think this unblock was incorrect. Please bring this to AN/I so consensus can be sought. ++]: ]/] 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Will do.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Conrad, in case you would like to participate, my analysis is available for review at ]. Thanks.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

== CBD should be the Wiki President ==

Dude, you should be in charge of this goddamn website. --] 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:As predicted, the trolls are quite happy with your recent work, CBD. Having you attack admins for them makes their work so much more effective. --] 22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:46, 5 January 2025

Message Page for Conrad Dunkerson (CBDunkerson)

Click here to leave me a message
Send me a personal e-mail
Go to my main userpage
Refresh this page

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • 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.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ME-lang

Template:ME-lang has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:CBDunkerson: Difference between revisions Add topic