Wikipedia

User talk:Mgasparin/Archive 2

< User talk:Mgasparin
Latest comment: 4 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

African Americans RfC Close

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Mgasparin, in your close you stated that "there is a fairly strong consensus against inclusion of a lead image", but the RfC was only asking "Should this article have this lead image?" Would you change this? Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut My apologies, yes I will. Mgasparin (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Mgasparin (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC close

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Mgasparin, I don't suppose if and when you have 10-20 minutes free if you could kindly close Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC_about_station_layouts_and_exits could you please?, I don't feel it's important enough to list at AN/RFC but would rather someone uninvolved close it,
From my understanding content such as this can be removed but content such as this should stay
(My understanding of it (and as noted in the RFC) if it's prosed it's kept, if it only consists of diagrams and nothing else then it's removed),
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 09:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 Can you give me about a day to finish it? I am in the process of writing a close right now, I just need some time to read all of it. Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
hi m no worries theres no rush, many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 07:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done Davey2010 If you feel I did not understand the discussion fully and would like the close changed, feel free to let me know. Mgasparin (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mgasparin, Many thanks for closing it, Could you maybe expand it more to sort of say what is considered fine and what isn't?, If you'd rather reopen it and leave it for someone else that's fine completely understand but there does need to be an explanation otherwise we're all going to end up back at the talkpage, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You're a star!, Many thanks for that I appreciate you doing that :), Enjoy the rest of your day and thanks again, Warm regards, –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Deja Vous

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've noticed that you've twice reverted my edit from 'déjà vu' -> 'Deja vous' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu#D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu. I don't believe it makes sense that déjà vu would be a pun on déjà vu, and it states below that deja vous translates to already you instead of already seen although the phrase hadn't been mentioned before. I do believe that the edit should be deja vous, as that is a common american spelling with the meaning that the description below explains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.215.114 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the pun makes sense when read aloud, because of the pronunciation of the french phrase in english. If you read the paragraph, you will see that it does in fact make sense. Mgasparin (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
But read "When pronounced this way, /ˌdeɪʒɑː ˈvuː/ (About this soundlisten), it means "already you" in French, rather than "already seen" and is written "déjà vous"." It says that it would be written as Deja vous, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_vous writes about this same pun. I feel like the spelling cue is important, as the 'pun' has the exact same spelling as the name of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.215.114 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I understand what you are saying. Yes, you were correct in your edits there. Articles like those really are not my area of understanding, so when someone just removes accents or renames paragraphs as you did, it can be difficult sometimes to distinguish between vandalism and actual attempts to better the article. Thank you for bringing this up. Mgasparin (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It's alright! Thank you for understanding.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.215.114 (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted text

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I got your email on the text on William B. Taylor, but in the text of your email it apparently indicates seven reverted changes. It's possible I inserted a comma or something else relatively minor, but I didn't make the wholesale changes your email indicates. Is there a possible misattribution there?

Grammarspellchecker (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Grammarspellchecker Okay, I didn't send any emails, but I know that you didn't do all those edits. Here, I was referring to an IP who had added a lot of unsourced information. Your edit was simply inside a large backlog in PC. As your edit was merely a typo fix, I figured that you or someone else could just fix it back later, saving me the trouble of having to undo every nonconstructive edit except for yours. Mgasparin (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Opening statements

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was just getting ready to add previous Opening Statements to the Trump timeline when I noticed you had changed to a different source. Not a problem, I just wanted to explain and possibly discuss why I feel the opening statements of the witnesses could and should be included. Its for the historic content that The Timeline provides for future readers and WP visitors. At this point the testimony is hidden behind the closed doors of the hearing. All we can provide the readers right now as content is each Opening Statement. Once the hearings move to the next stage the Opening Statements will surely get lost in the clutter of each sides diverse opinions, tweets, briefings and the rest. BTW, its a pleasure working with you. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are getting at. I have added the reference back. Mgasparin (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
TY, ―Buster7 ☎ 21:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump books close

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Thanks for stepping up to close the book authorship discussion at Donald Trump. I started a new subsection beneath your close suggesting an alternative, which I hope will be considered either by the group who commented or an editor who volunteers to review the close. My main concern is that multi-choice voting schemes often produce paradoxical numeric results and on Wikipedia we do not like to count votes to find consensus. See what you think. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

T.b.c., cont.

Re: [1]

These processes are complex and confusing, and they even vary between articles depending on the editors present. It's maddening. Regrettably, we have to spend around one-third of our time debating ground rules that should be clearly defined and universally accepted. That's no way to run an encyclopedia, but it's to be expected when nobody and everybody is in charge. Please don't take my comments as criticism of your general competence; you are a valuable participant in my book. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Clearly there is (or was) at least a little disagreement that, as involved, you shouldn't have closed that because it wasn't a clear-cut case. So let's say I'm wrong for the sake of discussion. Here is a more complete response to this comment.

As I see it, there are four legitimate basic responses to a challenge:

  • "I've given it more thought, I see your point, and I agree. I will change my close."
  • "I've given it more thought, I see your point, and I disagree."
  • "I've given it more thought and I don't see your point."
  • "I've given it more thought and I will re-open the discussion and let someone else close it."

Not included:

  • "Ok, if you feel that way, I'm willing to change my close to suit you."
  • "If a majority agree on a consensus assessment, I'll change my close to suit them. Comments anyone?"

The difference may seem subtle, but the mind-set is essential to the integrity of the process. The closer's function is not to implement the consensus assessments of involved editors – which would defeat the very purpose of uninvolved close – but rather to make their own independent assessment – while not being completely deaf to input from involved editors. If you decide to stand by your close, anyone is free to request close review at WP:AN. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Hey, thanks for the message. In the (recent) past when I have done closes (see above), an editor may come back to me to request a change in a close often because that editor felt that perhaps I didn't understand the discussion fully or wasn't clear in my close. (I'm more or less just restating what you said above right now).
When I said that I could change my close, it wasn't in response to the opinions of uninvolved editors, but as a result of SPECIFICO explaining more clearly how a proper close is done. Yeah, I realize that in hindsight simply "striking my !vote" was really silly and looked absolutely like I was still involved. By IAR, an involved editor can close discussions, but I probably should have just left it to someone else. Mgasparin (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Mgasparin,

I really appreciate you following up with me, either it is with my edits or with any contribution I make on Wikipedia. You are a very humble person. :) Yes, I am new to the articles for the creation and would need some guidance. If you could send me an article on how to send the article for review before publishing it directly, and I hope you continue to help me out as you did so far. Thank you so much! Angus1986 (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Angus1986: After doing some looking around, I found that H:YFA is an okay source for information. If you want a better article, try WP:V, as what you really need is some more content in the article. Also, citations on Wikipedia are done using HTML code or wiki markup. The templates for those formats are here. You have to type the reference directly into the article surrounded by ref tags. (They're at the bottom of your screen in source editor.) I can help you out a bit later if you still need it.
If you still don't understand, look at how citations are done on other articles. An excellent one is here. (It's an article that I work on a lot, and has all the correct formats for citation.) Do look at the "References" section, as you will see a template placed in there, instead of the references themselves. (The template transcludes all the references that you typed in the article into the "references" section, for easy viewing).
As far as sending the article for review before publishing, the folks at the teahouse or the AfC help desk can help you out greatly. Like I said earlier, the greatest problem with your article is that it lacks sources. As you increase the number of sources, I think you will find that the content size will increase as well.
Lastly, keep in mind that if you cannot find anything on this youtuber, it is likely that he is just not notable enough for inclusion. I have had a hard time finding anything on him, though perhaps you will be more successful. Good luck. Mgasparin (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Mgasparin! I will look into it. Angus1986 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 Wikipedia 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 WRC

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Mgasparin,

I'm going to take you up on your offer here because I don't think your actions were right for the article. I understand your concerns about personal attacks, but I do think that there is some context that needs to be taken into consideration. I feel that one editor in particular has been engaging in harrassment, particularly wikihounding, where he "[singles] out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work".

I can demonstrate, through edits, that like most editors, this editor works on a variety of topics. Similarly, he edits a variety of articles within those topics. However, the only contributions that he makes to rallying articles is to participate in discussions where he either opposes me or proposes ideas (such as the discussion you closed) that have previously been rejected and to which I am opposed. He has an extremely narrow interest in the subject which I find too narrow to be genuine.

I have tried raising this at ANI before. I consulted an admin who said he thought I had a case for wikihounding (which introduced me to the term), but the editor in question portrayed the ANI as me trying to get some petty revenge. After that, things went quiet, which co-incided with me stepping away from Formula 1 articles (as I was bored with the sport), which is one of his favourite topics. However, I recently participated in a Formula 1 discussion, and sure enough, the editor returned to WRC talk pages, opposing me. I believe he does this because he knows that I have a vision for what the articles can be which he then disrupts.

In short, I believe the entire process here has been flawed. The editor has not acted in good faith because I think he is more interested in "beating me" than he is in actually editing the article. If you look at the edit histories of the pages involved, you will see that the small group of editors involved are very cohesive and constructive until this editor comes along. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 It is not excusable to say that editors "have agendas". Talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not the actions or competence of other editors. Fine, I may have used the wrong choice of words when I referred to you and other editors as "high school girls", but the conversation that was going on in that article was non-productive and rather inappropriate. Yes, Tvx1 may have been hounding you, but that still does not excuse your (and Tvx1's) behaviour in the discussion. As a piece of advice to you, there comes a time in which you must simply walk away from the dispute as continuing the dispute (no matter how right you may be) is not worth the fighting. Mgasparin (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
If I walk away, it only encourages him. I've dealt with him often enough to know that. The WRC articled are the articles that I have invested the most time and effort into over the past decade (I used to have another account). I certainly don't claim to own them; I say this because it is the work that I am most proud of. Tvx1, on the other hand, contributes nothing but conflict to the talk pages.
When I reported this to ANI all those months ago, I made what I felt was a reasonable proposal in the form of a two-way TBAN. Tvx1 would agree to stop editing rallying articles and in return I would agree to stop editing articles he nominated to limit the potential for conflict. I was expecting him to say Formula 1 articles, which I would have been fine with, but he also nominated Formula 2 and Formula 3 articles. I was shocked because he doesn't edit those articles. The point of the TBAN was to limit the potential for conflict, so nominating articles he didn't edit was just petty.
In my experience, calling him out on talk pages is the only way to stop him. I know he monitors my contributions page and he lobbies directly to admins. He always denies it and claims to be acting in good faith and will sit on the ANI page responding to everything. But he also knows that he's on thin ice because he got blocked for wikilawyering, and while he talked his way out of it, the admins are wiseing up to it. Calling him out on the talk page means that he knows he is being scrutinised. It might not be the most appropriate way to handle things, but he's a serial bully who plays the system. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Mclarenfan17 Believe me, I completely understand what you are saying. I have been in similar situations myself, both here and in real life. If you think that the admins are wiseing up to it, it may be time to speak with another admin or bureaucrat to consider your next steps. Your experience on wikipedia cannot be dominated by fighting and edit wars if you intend on being here long-term. Also, given that he has been blocked before for disruptive editing, you may be able to make a strong case against him. But do speak with the powers that be first. Good luck. Mgasparin (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Mgasparin. I did try last time, but felt it was derailed by a DRN volunteer who admitted that he hadn't read what I had posted at ANI, but still saw fit to pass judgement on it. Tvx1 used his comments to portray me as seeking revenge for "losing" a DRN discussion. Maybe it's time to try again. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
  Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on Sambandam

Sambandam

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism.Revert and protect)

Thank You

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

for your concentrated effort to maintain the conciseness of the edits and sources that go into the current Presidential Timelines.―Buster7 ☎ 15:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Buster7 Your kind words mean much, friend. Merry Christmas! Mgasparin (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

...Peace Will Guide the Planet....

 
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Happy Holidays ―Buster7 ☎ 14:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead/Lede

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

No, it's a bit more significant than "Tomato/Tomato", per MOS:LEAD. A Wikipedia lead is distinctly different from a news lede, and the spelling is how we convey and emphasize that difference. I wouldn't have said anything there if it had been an experienced editor (in that case they would be more likely to be aware of the issue and consciously choosing to disregard the guideline). So write "lede" if you like and I won't object, but please don't tell new editors it doesn't matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from. Still, aren't there more important things we can teach newer editors than how to type "lead"? Just a thought, you don't need to respond. Mgasparin (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh I don't mind responding.   Sure there are more important things. But we can teach less important things too, particularly when we can do it with a single sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Kira Pika and Hana o Pūn / Futari wa NS

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:Hana_o_Pūn_/_Futari_wa_NS. Which article is going to be merged to which? lullabying (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lullabying I fixed the close to clarify the direction of the merge of that page to Kinarin Revolution. Mgasparin (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Kira Pika to Kirarin Revolution, correct? Thanks for helping with the discussion. lullabying (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Glad I could help. Mgasparin (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

1.136.xx.xx

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They are adding names going by sources in the linked articles. Those sources do look reliable, so your reverts are nothing but edit warring. Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Materialscientist I was under the impression that you had to add references to the dates directly into the article. Guess I was wrong. Mgasparin (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

1.136.xx.xx

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They are adding names going by sources in the linked articles. Those sources do look reliable, so your reverts are nothing but edit warring. Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Materialscientist I was under the impression that you had to add references to the dates directly into the article. Guess I was wrong. Mgasparin (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

For the Timeline

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm having trouble finding a source for date when the First Family left Washington for Florida. I want to include it in 2019. ―Buster7 ☎ 03:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Buster7 Does this work for you? Perhaps you just weren't typing the right words into Google. Mgasparin (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, if you like CNN, I found this as well. Mgasparin (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. These fit the bill. I kept getting other trips to Mar-A-Lago, but not for Dec/2019. ―Buster7 ☎ 07:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there! Wishing you a very happy new year. I just got back from a long vacation, I am back on fighting vandalism here on WP, and now have rollback granted to my account. I just applied for AfC permissions as reviewer, do you think it is a right time for me to apply for one? Or do I need to undergo some training? I applied because I met the requirements and would help clear the backlogs. Looking forward to hearing from you. ^_^ Angus1986 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986 Hey there! Good to see you back. I know that you have done some good work here recently, and I think you would do a fine job in the position. Given that you are still kind of new here(<6 months), I'm not sure if your request will be approved or not. If you are approved to use the gadget, I strongly recommend that you find a mentor, Rosguill, Onel5969 or DannyS712 could be excellent. That way you have someone to look back on your decisions while you are still "learning the ropes". Good luck!!! Mgasparin (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, you were right. My request wasn't approved. I will get started with AfC and AfD and contact those mentors next month. Currently caught up with few things, will see you at the end of February. Take care and thank you so much for your guidance and advice. :) Angus1986 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Angus1986 Hey, sorry to hear that. My advice to you is that you participate heavily in deletion discussions, and try your hand at some closures (at WP:ANRFC). Remember that as an AfC reviewer, you have to decide if a new article is worthy of being included here, so if the admin reviewing your request sees that you have much experience in discussions involving problematic articles, you will have a much better chance of passing.   Best of luck, Mgasparin (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your Trump consensus update

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Re this:

That was a unique situation where I chose to modify the consensus list entry without a consensus for the modification. There was no consensus for the modification because very few cared enough to comment. Or, put differently, the consensus for the modification was visible only in common practice. It was an issue involving talk page housekeeping, not the article itself, and I opted to act outside the normal process and hope nobody objected. Thankfully, nobody has.

In such a situation, the discussion might as well have not occurred at all, so I felt it improper to link to it as if it DID support the modification. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. The other discussions concerning manual/automatic archival also had discussions linked, so to me it felt proper to link that discussion as well. That issue appeared to be a very minor one, probably why it attracted so little attention. Mgasparin (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]

  Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mgasparin/Archive_2&oldid=954684771"