Hello, Dilettante. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Translations of James Joyce, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bernard Pivot, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello Core Contest participants, we've officially hit the halfway mark! With just over three weeks remaining until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!
Now is a good time to set goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk)02:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Valereee, the first comment (by time stamp, not location)—On the contrary, I expect there ... the criminal charges—was very much not meant to be sarcastic, at least as I understand the term. It's not directed at any person; I composed it with regards to comments I'd seen but don't remember the authors of. IIRC sarcasm is meant to wound or insult a person (Just referenced Webster's to be sure). Though criticizing an opinion as opposed to a person is allowed, the tone was imperfect. I apologize if you or anyone else thought it was about a specific person or persons. Either way, I've struck the offending part since it's clearly not helping matters.
Regarding the second comment, I can't find ... not a Wikipedian (which I've struck in its entirety), I apologize to Lightburst. This comment was both sarcastic and angry, as you mentioned. I'll try to maintain a civil tone towards all users in the future. It was inexcusable, but since you asked what's going on, I'll explain though I'm aware that an explanation by no means mitigates the impoliteness of my prior comments nor excuses them.
I was angry because, from my end, it looked as though they intentionally misgendered a transgender person in order to prove a point. From what I know, Lightburst has a history of sub-optimal behaviour (As do I; I'm at least that self-aware), so I called them out for it.
If you think my comments were particularly egregious, feel free to issue a block or open an ANI discussion (though I'd prefer the former over the latter since this whole Andrew Tate debacle has wasted enough editors' time).
I don't feel it was particularly egregious. It just seemed hostile, and as this needs to be a collaborative environment I like to check on that. Thanks for seeing the point. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk)00:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
Hey there, welcome to the 25th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 March 2024. We've got a ton of wonderful editors taking back their pitchforks today. Don't worry, for they come in peace, to forcibly fix and extend existing scripts you use with sheer passion. There's so many, them forks have got what's basically their own column now! gift us with some rows before it's too late Aaron Liu (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
An easily configurable script to add a link to the #p-vector-user-menu-overflow portlet with a name, target, and icon. This one should be a relatively easier one. I would do it myself, but I'm too busy rotting away on Celeste (video game).
After the ＲＩＩＪ update, Aaron Liu: Watchlyst Greybar Unsin has a dismiss button that allows you to mark an item as read in one click and cycle to the next Watchlist item.
Lordseriouspig/StatusChangerImproved is just like Enterprisey's script, except you select your status from a dropdown instead of cycling through them with a button. The WMF operates out of car-centric infrastructure anyway. Shame!
Aaron Liu has created Duplinks from Evad37/duplinks-alt; his fork adds a config variable to automatically highlight duplicate links on the loading of any page where the portlet link would've appeared.
Tired of staring at a bunch of filtering text and waiting for darn filter logs to load? Msz2001/AbuseFilter analyzer can parse abuse filters into a visual syntax tree and evaluate locally on-demand!
Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences finds references with the same link and displays the number of them along with a button to add the {{duplicated citations}} tag under the references section. Being lazy has never been easier!
fastest gun on the net Ponor/really-quick-block really quick add to contribution lists three buttons awesome
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, 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.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Social Security (United States) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The link is what's important here. I've fixed it for you this timeGreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just discretely sliding this under this heading - I was looking through the RfC, and I noticed you made this comment. Perhaps those who signed initially are better judges of character than those who signed now. Nobody's said anything, but to me it appears to be a bit gravedance-ey, and a bit unempathetic. People signed in the end, didn't they? And there's many reasons why somebody might be unwilling to sign a recall petition. It's a pretty big thing to say (publicly!) that you think somebody cannot be trusted enough with a user right. It's not something to be taken lightly, and somebody assuming good faith and holding off until they feel that the evidence is unsurmountable does not make them lesser. The world would probably be better if we had more people like them, actually. Just, speaking as one starter of an admin recall petition to another - it really freaking sucks to be in a position where you think the only solution is to put another human being through what is, in its current form, a 30 day ANI thread, followed by an RfA, doesn't it? And I know I haven't behaved perfectly in the other one(hence why I checked out of it a while ago) - but, before the RfC closes, if you wanted to rethink that exact comment, I wanted to give you the chance. You don't have to agree with me, of course. Maybe you really do think that people who didn't sign the petition instantly are poorer judges of character than people who did, and you want to say it. If so, you can. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP stated the petition was started ... in the opinion of multiple people, [when there was] insufficient evidence that problems were still happening, which conveniently ignores the multiple people of the opposite opinion, and I felt it fair to mention that. Pointing out the most cynical possible reason, even if I don't believe it, made sense because the IP seemed to think I should be able to deduce the requisite evidence with no precedents for me to rely on. When someone makes a facile argument, I don't type out a paragraph explaining why they're wrong; I point out the most obvious issue (in this case that I couldn't have known community expectations) and move on, leaving it to the reader to justify each side.
If I had noticed these, I would have blocked the throw-away IP for more than a month because it is clearly a proxy being used for extreme abuse. Please consider striking your statements regarding the block of the most recent IP because a one-month block for abuse that has lasted for nearly four years is very reasonable. That is, of course, up to you but please check the above four diffs and consider what action would be suitable when a comment like that is repeated. I did not want to pad-out the recall discussion with this comment, particularly because it is not helpful to draw attention to abuse like this. However, finding these was a surprise to me and I thought I should let you know. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, three of those are so bad I have now rev-del'ed them. Blocking IPs for over-the-top abuse is not even a borderline judgement. There's zero chance that a new editor will join WP and make that as their first edit. Either it's a proxy or it's a MEAT or it's a blocked editor finding a new host...we don't need any of that. DMacks (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Thanks, probably best under the circumstances. I wouldn't have thought to revdel those myself because I'm extremely conservative about use of that tool (except for copyright violations). Graham87 (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not revision delete attacks like that on me, but I routinely do it instantly when another editor is the victim. I think we need to be tougher on people who use IP addresses to engage in ongoing vile and despicable ad hominem harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dilettante, imagine for the sake of discussion that you were an administrator, and had to decide how long to block a stable /64 IP address that had continued a vicious campaign of harassment that went back nearly four years, balancing that against the miniscule risk of collateral damage? Precisely which block length would you have selected instead? Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a much higher tolerance for a four year campaign of sexualized and appearance-based harassment of a disabled person than I do. So be it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my observation is fair and accurate, and so I will not strike it. There is wide disagreement among good faith editors about how lenient we should be with long term abusers, trolls and despicable harassers who hide behind IP addresses to carry out their compulsive multi-year hate campaigns. I readily admit that I am stringent as an administrator about this type of despicable person, and that other administrators and experienced editors take a more lenient stance, in the hope of avoiding collateral damage. You have shown that you are aligned with the more lenient stance, since you have called to desysop an adminstrator who has been the victim of this kind of disgusting harassment for four years, at least in part over a disagreement over whether an abuser hiding behind a /64 IP address should be blocked for one week or one month. Your lenient stance is shared by many and so I see no need to strike my accurate observation. I am commenting only for the purpose of encouraging you to rethink your stance, because you have, entirely inadvertently I am sure, created unproductive chaos. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. 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.
Hello, Dilettante. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Translations of James Joyce, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bernard Pivot, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scripts
