Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! TheThingy ^Talk 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only and administrator can totally remove a page and no one can clear a history as far as i'm aware without removing the whole page. Only a AFD or a speedy delete tag can begin this process. You are welcome to nominate any page that you believe falls into this category but it must meet certain conditions and in the case of AFD the community at large must comment on it and a Admin will delete or keep based on the consensus he feel has been reached. Don't nominate pages in bad faith or that clearly do not meet any of the criteria for AFD or Speedy delete as this is considered vandalism. As for a particular section if it does not pertain to the article or is all un-verifiable content then feel free to be Bold and delete it its self. just be aware that other editors will scrutinize your actions. They may attempt to add the section back in more so if the content was cited or if it was a core part of the article in which case you may need to defend your actions in debate, and be prepared to listen to other Wikipedian's arguments.

Finally as for just a line that says a secret phrase or describes a secret process of an organization then that can promptly be deleted as i said before since its unverifiable.

Hope this helps any questions or comments just leave them on my talk page. And if no one has done it yet Welcome to Wikipedia! And if you haven't already since this seems to be an issue that concerns you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities Its where we who watch out for and improve Greek Pages like to hang out and there is lots of good info on the talk pages and plenty to do.

Thanks and Good Luck!Trey (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit concerning the religious requirement -- I think it aptly summarizes the situation. I had hoped it would stay off the page, but if it has to be there, I think your edit puts it most appropriately. AEKDB Jheiv (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kappa_Sigma#traditional_history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.209.208 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The convention in 1939 is listed as being Glacier National Park, however that leads to a disambiguation page. Was the convention in Montana, USA or British Columbia, Canada?

Don't know. The Docet just says Glacier. My guess is in Montana.--Enos733 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Any idea where that information can be gotten?Naraht (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not off hand - older Docets or Caduceuses? Actually if someone has their old magazines, that would be a great place for historical information--Enos733 (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like continuing a thread four *years* later... I found out that it was in Montana. http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2011/Corning%20NY%20Evening%20%20Leader/Corning%20NY%20Evening%20%20Leader%201939%20Dec-Mar%201940%20Grayscale/Corning%20NY%20Evening%20%20Leader%201939%20Dec-Mar%201940%20Grayscale%20-%200042.pdf (the article whose title starts "Corningite given".Naraht (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, dare I ask how you happened to come across this paper? Amazing find. "Of all the gin joints ... in all the world"...--Enos733 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on the ConCourt case lists! I know how timeconsuming it can be, from the ones that I've done. I hope you don't mind the changes I've made to them. - htonl (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is Wikipedia is for - to expand, correct, and made the world's information easily accessible. --Enos733 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where are you finding the sort key? It is not the neutral citation, nor on most of the information I find accessible?--Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the sort key for the case no. column I derive from the "CCT xx/yy" case number. Basically, take the year part (yy) and expand it to a four-digit year and then add a dash and the xx part (with a zero in front if it is only one digit). So, "CCT 23/99" becomes "1999-23", and "CCT 4/02" becomes "2002-04". That way, when you sort the case number column, it sorts by the year part first and then by the number of the case within that year. If there wasn't a sort key, it would sort by the number part first and then the year, which wouldn't make much sense. - htonl (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Although we seem to have a good method for these tables, have you checked out the lists of cases for the Supreme Court of Canada (2002 reasons) or the lists for the United States Supreme Court (2002 reasons)? Let me know what you think and how we might improve these lists.--Enos733 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen those, but I thought it seemed like too much work! I certainly don't mind if you want to do that to the ConCourt lists. - htonl (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have that info at hand, but I would expect that eventually what we are doing will turn into that format.--Enos733 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a "straw poll" has been added at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Straw poll for an issue you discussed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed part of my own statement, if you think any of what you just said is actually a counterargument to any of it — for one thing, I included both nationalized coverage and a significant volume of local coverage as ways that a mayor's notability could be properly demonstrated. A mayor of Calgary or Atlanta or Sacramento would clearly be considered notable, for example, because they're large and clearly important cities and the volume of coverage they could show would absolutely be extremely high locally — but it would also quite regularly nationalize too. Naheed Nenshi, for instance, regularly gets covered in The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star and on the national television newscasts in Canada, and if I Google Keisha Lance Bottoms I get hits from CNN and The New York Times and television newscasts in Pittsburgh. (I know she's not quite the mayor yet, but she's the name I remember because as the new mayor-elect she's newsy right now.)

I'm not saying city size is entirely irrelevant to mayoral notability — it's pretty obvious that a mayor of a large city is much more likely to be notable than the mayor of a small village is. All I mean when I talk about the population test not being the deciding factor is that it's not a hard cutoff — it is possible for a mayor of a smaller city to clear the bar as the subject of more and/or wider coverage than usual (for an example, see Merle Dickerson, which cites literally 800 per cent more nationalized coverage than I've ever been able to find for any other mayor of his small city or even most mayors of the significantly larger city I grew up in), and it's possible for a larger city mayor to fall below the bar (some mayors, even in large cities, are internally selected by the city council and serve more as ceremonial than true executive mayors.) Historically, as well, people tended to misinterpret the population test as an automatic inclusion freebie that somehow exempted a mayor from actually having to satisfy any other notability criterion: if the place was 100K or more, then the article had to be kept regardless of any other considerations like sourcing problems or the elected-vs.-ceremonial issue. One of the biggest reasons we finally deprecated having a hard population test written directly into the notability standard for mayors was the situation in England — where the vast majority of all mayors are the ceremonial kind and only a very small number are actually directly elected, but people regularly interpreted the population "in" as an exemption from the ceremonial "out".

And even for some major cities, the articles have remained very inadequate and minimally sourced in the long term, because once the initial "Jane Smith is the mayor of Cityville" is in place there isn't always very much actual editor commitment to expanding it to ever actually say or source anything more than that.

Basically, it's more of a sliding scale: a mayor of a small town can sometimes be more notable than the norm, and a mayor of a bigger city can sometimes be less. Population is a factor, but it's just one factor among several rather than the be-all and end-all in and of itself. That's all I mean. Bearcat (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat I completely agree with the ceremonial mayor/mayor in a council manager form of government distinction as the primary distinction whether an individual mayor is notable. However, since most mayors (at least in North America) are independently elected, the local/national coverage question would nearly always be questioned. An example I can think of is Marc Demers, the current mayor of Laval, Quebec (population 422,993 - 13th largest in Canada). A quick news search (first four pages) of the mayor is primarily local coverage (from both Montreal papers) and a couple CTV Montreal stories that mention his reelection campaign. On the surface, it would not appear that he would meet the nationalization test you lay out. However, suggesting that he would not be notable would not pass my sniff test (and why at some population, city size is sufficient to consider a mayor a high-profile individual). --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Hello. Your attention is called to [1], wherein your name is mentioned. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please undo your closure of this discussion? Those "keeps" all came within the final hours of the listing and I didn't have a chance to respond. czar 07:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Czar, what I saw in evaluating the discussion and determining a close was appropriate was one delete/redirect nomination saying that secondary sources don't exist, your redirect comment saying that secondary sources don't exist, and then three comments demonstrating sources do exist and no rebuttal to those sources. I'm curious what you would say that would change the outcome of the discussion, as I think the keep voters all adequately demonstrated that secondary sources exist, and even if the AFD were re-listed, there would be a strong likelihood that the next person to close would close as keep or no-consensus (barring a flurry of support for a redirect). That said, if you continue to feel that it should be reopened, I will be willing to do so. --Enos733 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The secondary sources provided in the last 24 hours of the listing were not sufficient for significant coverage and would have been further discussed had the discussion been relisted instead of closed. I am requesting that it be relisted. czar 03:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Czar, I have asked for assistance in re-listing the discussion, but I do think the sources were sufficient. Not only does the NY Times piece exist, there is a lengthy article from Vermont Public Radio. --Enos733 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC) UPDATE - undone close. --Enos733 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure where you wanted input to go, so I left some thoughts on the talk page at User talk:Enos733/sandbox/Candidate notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your trust and support in my recent run. Please call on me if I can be helpful or if you see I'm not being helpful. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enos733, while your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Spencer Law is correct insofar as the article should be kept, I think you should include something in your closure along the line of "some editors raised the concern that notability guidelines perpetuate systemic WP:BIAS." JBchrch talk 20:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch, not all closing discussions require additional comments and I rarely see closing comments that address larger questions about the notability guidelines. While I agree that your statement could be included, I don't think it was necessary (in this case) to summarize the close. --Enos733 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would go even further and say that most of closings do not require additional comment. However, when applicable, I think it's useful to document how the consensus is moving on our guidelines. But if you are not inclined to include it I won't push the issue any further. (and just for the record, just wanted to say that I would have written the exact same talk page message if the discussion had been closed by an admin) JBchrch talk 08:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch, I am quite sympathetic to your point, as that show the notability guidelines favor individuals who live in areas with a printing press (and that people written about tend to be male). As I reread the discussion I only see Vladimir.copic and (to a lesser extent) yourself suggesting hindsight bias exists when thinking of The Times as a paper of record. No other editor (I count 10 in the discussion), addressed the point. For me, WP:OUTCOMES is a better place to show how consensus is moving or at another forum dealing with notability, rather than on a single AfD page. --Enos733 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also count Mztourist and Hawkeye7. But again don't want to push it. JBchrch talk 15:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - given your comment regarding subnational bodies, you might find this table I've been working on of interest: Presumed notability of members of subnational parliaments (legislatures). There's a large body of work that intersects political science, sociology and public law around the distinctions between federal and unitary states, which is pretty consistent on the distinctions between jurisdictional power at subnational levels. And while there has definitely been a trend since the late-middle 20th Century by central governments towards devolution, this is usually marked far more by financial/fiscal devolution rather than juridic-political (and the trend of course in policing, surveillance etc is the opposite, ie higher, expanded centralisation). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarrassing, thank you for cleaning up my mistake! Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I've made similar mistakes. Cheers. Enos733 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of 2020 United States presidential electors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2020 United States presidential electors until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit of Six-Bid Solo, which I haven't reverted as it works in this case. Please note that Wikipedia does not deprecate the use of "he or she"; in fact, it is a recommended way of avoiding single-gender pronouns. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the use of "he or she" is not depreciated, but Wikipedia (and Commons) policy demonstrates a commitment "to providing a welcoming environment" (and to write policies in a gender-neutral language). Across the board, the general guidance is to rewrite the sentence to avoid the use of gender whenever possible and preserve the clarity of the passage. - Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Enos733 for your fixes to Puzzle Pirates; I've taken the liberty of fixing up the grammar and resolving the use of "he or she" elsewhere in the article too! Also glad people still care about the game I worked on briefly over 15 years ago! Lizthegrey (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have worked on the Kappa Sigma pages, and have recently updated the list of chapters. Thanks for that.

Should you have further interest in Greek societies, we'd welcome your participation on our shared project, the Fraternities and Sororities Project.

For many of us, these institutions represent a very impactful period in our lives. I know of several chapter advisors among the regular 300 participants, along with general alumni and undergrads that are Wiki-savvy. We presently keep an eye on 1,500 or so Greek pages, while a fairly substantial number of recent or dormant local chapters don't make the cut. There are perhaps 6,000 locals that do not have a Wikipedia article, and maybe 50 that do - mostly at Ivy League schools. Long ago, the Baird's Manual editors decided to include as national groups those societies that had three or more chapters, or locals that met a certain bar of longevity: ten years or more. We follow that same logic.

The Project page lists several items on our To Do list, but among them are:

1. Review any of our watched pages for vandalism.
2. Update chapter information for the many lists of chapters.
3. Help us with our major effort to update all the lists of chapters - see the note on the project's Talk page.
4. Write an article to list the Greeks on a particular campus. 50 of these have been done, so far.
5. Research a new article for a page that is missing. On our watchlist, these show up as red links.
6. Vote on whether to keep a contested page or not.

There is a debate among editors on Wikipedia about whether to aggressively delete articles or allow their inclusion, based on a notoriously fickle determination of NOTIBILITY. Once an article is factually and cleanly written, I personally favor Inclusion, in order to make life easier for future researchers. Especially for fraternity, sorority and collegiate society articles.

If this last issue is of interest, you may wish to weigh in on any current discussion of an "Article for Deletion" or AfD: Two or three of these crop up each month. Instructions to find these are linked on the Project page. Just add a line to that particular discussion, with your vote, to Keep or Delete (or some other option) bolded at the start of the line.

Whatever you choose to do, we would welcome your participation in this Greek-friendly project. Join by adding your name here.
Jax MN (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enos. I've seen your latest work on Fraternity and Sorority Project list pages, and appreciate all you are doing. May I ask you a favor? I thought I would ask you instead of doing it myself as that can appear like I am correcting you. (Not my intent. I applaud your efforts.) It's just that we are attempting to standardize these lists to also include a city and state column. Would you add those two fields?

I just looked at Delta Xi Phi. In the case of [[State University of New York at Old Westbury]] I'd suggest you abbreviate it like this: [[State University of New York at Old Westbury|SUNY Old Westbury]]. When adding cities, similarly use something like: [[Bowling Green, Ohio|Bowling Green]], and pair that with the next field, noting the state. Jax MN (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you are a member of WikiProject Law. I am seeking feedback on a draft I created about trial attorney Bill Carmody, of Susman Godfrey, who has been profiled in the press several times because of the size and prominence of his cases. I have explained more here: User talk:Backyard116/sandbox/Bill Carmody/Seeking feedback. He’s a personal connection of mine, so impartial advice on notability and neutral point of view would be greatly appreciated. Backyard116 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi Enos733 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you add people to the Deaths in 2024 page, please note that they should be in alphabetical order under each day. Thank you. Marbe166 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 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) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]