Skip to top
Skip to bottom
Contentious topics

Recent merges into Information Age edit

Hi Interstellarity :) I'm adding {{copied}} templates following the merger of multiple articles into Information Age, and I just wanted to clarify whether any content was copied/merged from Internet age or not - this edit summary suggests there might have been, but there's no corresponding edit to Information Age that references content being merged from that article.

(Also, for future reference, best practice is to include a wikilink to the page being copied from in the edit summary when copying text within Wikipedia, rather than the unwikilinked page name. I realise that this might seem overly pedantic, but I just thought I'd let you know, as - judging by WP:ATTREQ - attribution in this way has to be via hyperlink.)

Let me know if you have any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 03:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@A smart kitten: Thanks for the message. Although I may make edits that improve Wikipedia, I encourage other editors to improve upon my changes. I appreciate it. Interstellarity (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply - sorry for asking again, but just to clarify, was any content copied/merged from Internet age? Just so I know whether to add a {{copied}} template regarding that page or not. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@A smart kitten: Yes, I copied a little bit from every page. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page moves edit

Hello, Interstellarity,

I watch the Move log and I just wondered what is up with all of the page moving for the Vital Articles pages? It looks like you did some massive retitling and then decided to revert all or many of your page moves? There are editors who work with these pages and I think any resuffling involving reclassifying pages should be discussed first. Thanks for any additional information you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Liz and thanks for reaching to me on my talk page. This is being discussed on the V5 talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Recent_move. I usually discuss major changes on the talk page. I think based on what you are saying, it is probably worth discussing with other editors before reshuffling the pages. I acted too quickly in moving the pages boldly and should have left a message gathering editor input on what to do with the pages. I hope you understand what I am trying to get out of here and will try very hard to improve myself here on Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I edit

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply