Maddy from Celeste
 | Sometimes I go on a wikibreak, and a variety of templates have been seen here to that effect. However, I usually only care to add a template when I am already on my way back from a break. Therefore, if you are in doubt whether I am currently active, check my contributions. Even if I don't edit, I remain logged in when reading, and will thus see (and try to respond to) any messages left here. |
|
 | Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them! |
Index
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
edit
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Whadjuk on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
edit Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Move review
editHello, thanks for taking the time to review this discussion: [1]. Can you please elaborate on the no consensus closing? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I personally happen to agree with both the argument to move in the original RM and with the overturn side in the MRV. However, the discussion did not result in a consensus to overturn. Points that particularly influenced my close were the balance of !votes among uninvolved editors, and the in my opinion irrelevant arguments invoking the closer's non-admin status from the overturn side. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please elaborate why you think it's irrelevant? The arguments cited WP:BADNAC: 2. "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the purpose of Wikipedia:Move review is to discuss closures, not closers. That essay's suggestion may be useful to avoid bad closures being made, but saying a closure should be overturned because it was too contentius for a non-admin closure is, on its own, a not a strong argument. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it weren't a strong argument, it was still stronger than the arguments that supported the closure as they did not cite any guideline or essay in their reasoning, having actually barely elaborated on their responses beyond "endorse". Would you consider at least extending the discussion on the move review page? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- A little relevant argumentation is better than lots of irrelevant argumentation, and I do not agree that all "endorse" !votes
barely elaborated on their responses
. I do not think reöpening would be beneficial considering that I closed it a whole week after the last !vote. My overall impression remains that no consensus was achieved during the discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- A little relevant argumentation is better than lots of irrelevant argumentation, and I do not agree that all "endorse" !votes
- Even if it weren't a strong argument, it was still stronger than the arguments that supported the closure as they did not cite any guideline or essay in their reasoning, having actually barely elaborated on their responses beyond "endorse". Would you consider at least extending the discussion on the move review page? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the purpose of Wikipedia:Move review is to discuss closures, not closers. That essay's suggestion may be useful to avoid bad closures being made, but saying a closure should be overturned because it was too contentius for a non-admin closure is, on its own, a not a strong argument. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please elaborate why you think it's irrelevant? The arguments cited WP:BADNAC: 2. "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mentor :-*
editJust finding my feet again here... if you have any time to have a look at my edits/contributions so far and let me know if I'm doing anything particularly heinous i would appreciate it! Equally if you have some tedious/repetitive tasks linked to your goals here which are suitably n00bish then I'm happy to try and help :) Bazzabloodybenson (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Bazzabloodybenson! I had a look as you asked me to. I think you are doing great so far! Two notes:
- You use Bare URLs when citing sources. Click that link to find out what that means and to see how to make prettier footnotes :)
- On your Draft:Owen Bates, you cite the British tabloids Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail. These are very unreliable sources. There is an overview of many well-known publications along with how reliable they are considered by Wikipedia editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There exists a user script that automatically highlights many dubious sources.
- Don't hesitate to ask me if you ever have any further questions, and happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello --Okuge (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia, Okuge! If you have any questions about editing, you can ask me on this page. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
Miscellaneous
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
edit Your feedback is requested at Talk:ELAM (Cyprus) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
edit Your feedback is requested at Talk:History of Transylvania on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Requesting some article expansion help
editGreetings @Maddy from Celeste
Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your edit at Early Islam, though a small edit, seems to indicates your likely understanding of availability of sources on this topic.
Requesting your visit to Tashabbuh (still a draft in my userspace) and help expand the topic areas if you find topic interesting. Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing.
Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
edit Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bisexual lighting on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)