Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

See the talk page guidelines, redacting out material when it is oversightable, while waiting for someone to delete it is allowed. In this case, the edit in question links to page that contains the PII of another editor on its front page. Sagflaps (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sagflaps. The edit I reverted contains only on-wiki links; it doesn't contain any external links, and certainly none to Wikipediocracy. Please take more care. Grandpallama (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how a second degree link to it is that much different (the on wiki link links to the off wiki link), but there's been so many edits since it was posted at this point it might as well be moot regardless. Sagflaps (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you don't see the difference is why you shouldn't be messing with others' comments. You should reread WP:TPO; removing a wikilink isn't an acceptable reason to redact someone else's comment. Grandpallama (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would allow people to get around the rules by creating a Wikipedia page containing a link to a dox of a user, and then wikilink to that page to circumvent the rules. Sagflaps (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO. Grandpallama (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grandpallama,

I just wanted to thank you for your comment to me in the ANI discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND). I don't spend much time on noticeboards as when I first started editing and I didn't check all of the diffs in this discussion, just the ones I saw for harassment and personal attacks. I probably should have looked deeper into the charges before making a off-the-top-of-my-head comment. Your remark was sound and it turned out that the editor had used multiple accounts and was worthy of being blocked.

When I was a frequent visitor to ANI (~2013-2016), the atmosphere was very divisive, mob-like and a little brutal so the "personal attacks" cited these days seem a little mild to me. But that doesn't mean that they were okay to say so I really shouldn't compare behavior from years ago. Any way, I appreciate your counsel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I thought your comment was perfectly fine! In fact, I very much agree with the sentiment you expressed about giving people a chance to respond; you (along with a couple of other admins--Cullen immediately comes to mind) are especially good models of patience, assuming good faith, and all around consideration of others. I thought your comment was right, and I wasn't admonishing you (or at least wasn't intending to), but to pull your attention to the fact that there had been more editing after your comment.

AN/ANI can obviously still get pretty heated, and I'm no angel in terms of some of my contributions there; I could probably always stand to be more patient and more forgiving. So, sincerely, thank you for continuing to show us all how we ought to behave at places like that. Grandpallama (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no sign Mickey's Mouse Trap releasing this month. 23.245.44.64 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Providing reliable sources isn't optional. Grandpallama (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Grandpallama. Regarding this comment of yours at an AN/I thread about possibly trouting me for responding to canvassing, I just wanted to point out that the guideline for appropriate notification includes these criteria:

• On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field

To the first point: I have a strong interest in welcoming and helping editors at Wikipedia whose native language is not English, and who may be having language-related difficulties in their editing. This has been true for years, and has extended in the last decade or so to student editors at Wiki Education as well, a significant minority of whom are foreign students who sometimes fall into this category. As far as the second point: I have a history of improving or creating articles in English about Brazilian topics, especially in politics, government, and criminal investigation, sometimes on topics that have no recognized English term available, such as this and this. Such articles often have arcane or subtle translation difficulties, and to support other editors and myself who translate articles from pt-wiki or use Brazilian sources, I created the Wikipedia:Brazil/Glossary. Whether that rises to the level of "expertise" or not is not for me to say, but other editors might think so.

Given that I believe that I was notified on my user talk page for these two reasons, I did respond at the AN/I thread as I consider it to be appropriate per the guideline. Nevertheless, I added the "(canvassed)" note which you noticed in the interest of full transparency and to permit other editors or admins to assess my comment who might view APPNOTE differently—especially so a discussion closer could discount my comment if need be.

I didn't want to clutter that "nightmare" thread with an even more tangential side issue of a side issue, just to see it drone on even longer there, but I did want to explain, so I hope you don't mind my responding here. I hope this helps clarify why I think it was appropriate for me to respond at the thread. I'm well aware that you might view things differently, and if you want to trout me, feel free; I won't remove it from UTP. Best, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see two problems with the canvassing (but less on your part, per my ANI comment). The first is that while you certainly do have that background, experience, and those interests, the complaint wasn't really about Portuguese (or Portuguese-language) articles, or about welcoming new editors--that's just how the canvassing to you was framed. And you were the only person canvassed—by a frequent collaborator and, I would presume (perhaps incorrectly), friend. That leads to the second problem: in no way was the request for your input neutral, or neutrally worded, or anything other than a "come back me up" call for help. There's reasonable wiggle room regarding whether or not you are an appropriate recipient, but the notification itself is, as I stated at ANI, a textbook violation of WP:CANVASS. You were not explicitly prohibited from following that invitation, but it creates a "fruit of the poisoned tree" situation. I think you (both) genuinely want to help O recomeço (whom I've deliberately been "nopinging", because I'm afraid all the edit notices he's going to return to are also going to be counterproductive), but in responding to that particular request, worded in that particular way, I think you did him a disservice when it comes to whatever admin finally closes that discussion. To me, the trouting is about your participation likely having the opposite of your intended outcome, and was intended to be gentle. Grandpallama (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that, and I'll definitely have a think about the "opposite of [my] intended outcome" part especially, and I appreciate the "gentle" as well. Ditto on the "nopinging"; +1 for that (and as you have no doubt noticed, I've been doing the same here). Because the canvassing issue is part of a discussion about possible sanctions against an editor now, I feel I have to respond (gently, briefly) at the thread, against my own preference, as I had hoped to avoid additional drama, but I think that argument deserves my view, if only to add a link back here and not go into any details about it there. Thanks again, happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And it is, conversely, time for me to stop commenting at that thread and let whatever will be, be. I think it needs a couple more completely uninvolved editors to opine, and then a swift close. Grandpallama (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more! Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2024 (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]

Why did you remove the link to Honorific nicknames in popular music in the articles of Sarah Geronimo and Angeline Quinto? ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the former in the talkpage discussion you opened, and the latter was pretty clearly explained in the edit summary which removed it. Further content discussion is probably best kept at the relevant talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the user User:Kolossoni (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kolossoni/Archive) that you and I recently got involved with and got blocked, is it too much to think that this IP user 49.183.166.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is his sock? I suspect that he saw my talk page, learned that I was involved in the Cherry blossom page description, and made changes to Cherry blossom in retaliation. He claimed to be German-Australian, Korean-Australian and Japanese on several accounts, and this IP user is also from Australia. He tried to post an inappropriate genealogy on the Korean influence on Japanese culture page, probably from a Korean nationalist point of view. And on the Cherry blossom page, he added an unsourced and untrue statement that cherry clossom have deep cultural and symbolic significance in China and Korea. Korean nationalists often refuse to acknowledge the history of the development of many cultivars of cherry trees in Japan and the spread of the cherry blossom viewing custom from Japan to China and Korea. It is too coincidental to be suspicious. I think it would be worth doing a user check on this IP user, but I am not sure how to make the request. If you don't mind, can you help me?--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, can you help me? SLIMHANNYA, I'll try. I wasn't sure at first, but now I think you are probably correct. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The source that this IP user once added and later deleted made me more and more suspicious.[1] The author of this source is a man called Kuitert Wybe from Seoul National University in Korea. In another dissertation, he discusses the controversy over whether the parent of the Japanese Yoshino cherry is the Korean King cherry.[2] This is a well known controversy in Korea and is covered in the media every cherry blossom season. Despite the fact that multiple DNA studies have shown that the Japanese Yoshino cherry and the Korean King cherry are different species, many Korean media have claimed that the Japanese Yoshino cherry is derived from the Korean King cherry. This IP user limited the cherry blossom debate to the conflict between Japan and China, but somehow Korea came up again.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am allowed to speak here, I would say go ahead but do it in good faith. This is silly but I haven't done any disruptive editing there. I am simply saying that China and Korea both have many wild cherry blossoms and should be given mention. And am discussing it in talk without edit warring at all. Is that all it takes to get accused? Some heated argument doesn't mean I am kolossoni. But nonetheless don't take my word for it if you doubt it. Go and look at his IP and my IP address. I honestly don't know them at all but given there are so many editors globally, I think there is a decent solid chance we may be completely different countries. 49.180.5.114 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SLIMHANNYA Also my statement isn't untrue. In both China and Korea, cherry blossoms hold cultural significance as symbols of beauty and renewal. Cultivated for centuries, they are depicted in art, poetry, and literature, representing the fleeting nature of life and the arrival of spring. Cherry blossom festivals are popular in both countries, attracting visitors to admire the blooming trees and partake in outdoor activities, reflecting their importance in cultural traditions. I simply summarised it in a sentence. And I wasn't following you and honestly didn't even know you existed until you first reverted my edit just a hour ago. (But I never reverted any of your edits). Don't make such accusations at others way too loosely as you and others are not the only editors here. I am just someone editing that article today and you clearly think I am wrong and why I am discussing it in talk. 49.180.5.114 (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't following you If you are not following SLIMHANNYA's edits, then how did you know they had posted on my talkpage? Grandpallama (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like fishing. :( Look, I saw them revert me and reply to me first on my talk thread. Given that they are responding to me on the talk page, I replied back to them. And then waited for their response. I was waiting and then felt curious on what kind of person they are. So I peeked at their edit contribution and then found they were talking about me just some hours ago. Regardless all I written was (cherry blossom have deep cultural and symbolic significance in China and Korea). And that shouldn't be enough to suspect me. If you feel like fishing based on just that alone and feel like you need to suspect everyone who edits that article and peek at your edit contribution after he reverted me and replied to me on talk (which many editors typically do). Then please just report me and compare me to that guy that you think I am. Chances are you will just owe me an apology for thinking I am them. As I am not them. And haven't done any disruptive editing. And doubt there can be any evidence to show I am them as I know the truth that you are wrong to suspect me on being them. 49.181.232.67 (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems my IP address automatically changed. Regardless I am not going to waste time discussing it further. I explained why I looked at his contributions. (Only after he reverted me and replied to me on talk. I didn't know him before then) So either report me or do treat me in good faith and stop trying to pin someone else on me based on a very small sliver of suspicion despite you don't even know for certain but just have suspicion and nothing solidly else. 49.181.232.67 (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SLIMHANNYA Also don't be misquoting and misrepresenting me above and jump to accusing me of being a Korean nationalist (I don't even like Korea nowadays). I had wrote "cherry blossoms hold deep cultural and symbolic importance in various East Asian countries, including China, Japan, and Korea." I didn't single out and leave out Japan in my editing, but felt it was important to note that all three countries with Buddhist influence, deeply value cherry blossoms. But I know that Japan did export many cultivars to Korea and China. I never removed that info in the article. You had alleged I was trying to take away credit from Japan in them cultivating many varieties of blossoms. But I think you really need to carefully read what I actually added to the article. I was the one who added in information that Japan helped develop more than 300 varieties of blossoms in the past centuries. I gave them dedicated credit because they deserve it as it's a notable achievement. So I did the opposite of what you claimed my intentions were. But just because Japan is the most successful cultivar, it doesn't mean that Cherry blossoms meant nothing culturally to Korea and China. And that was all I was trying to explain and provided reasoning in talk thread too, but I do not appreciate you casting me as a Korean nationalist despite I didn't even once try to take away credit from Japan in the article, nor was aiming for taking away credit from Japan. Please refrain from accusations I wish to deny credit to Japan in developing many cultivars, without solid evidence or grounds. Especially when it's proven I did the very opposite and have added in that exact information in myself. 49.181.232.67 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bludgeoning my talkpage, IP editor. Grandpallama (talk) 16:26, 5 April 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) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , sorry for inconvenience, but I would like to know which part of my report pn ani are bad . I would really appreciate your time . NICTON t (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is wrong with the previous presentation of the collected editions at Mage (comics) ? I carefully checked that the way I presented the information was correct. (Hohum ^@) 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the Starblaze editions again, the titles you gave them, and the relative publication dates; your edit claimed there were collected editions in 1987 of stuff that wouldn't be published for another 30+ years. Grandpallama (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are the same for every item in "my" version as in "yours". (Hohum ^@) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Hohum ^@) 21:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see my mistake, the names are incorrect, and much later. Apologies. (Hohum ^@) 21:33, 22 July 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]

I appreciated your addition to the ANI discussion before it was closed. Because my motives might not have been clear to you (and I might make an error myself), I'm happy to clarify my position if you have any issues to raise with me. As a human, I'm bound to screw up from time to time.

Any wikipedian may come along and make a bolded assertion. As somebody in whom the community has invested trust, I feel compelled to act deliberately (but sometimes less than boldly) when wearing my sysop cap (like in comments at ANI). In my statement, I summarized the discussion out loud without closing, attempting such an unduly civil reading that even Steven1991 felt the need to admit his part in the situation (behavior, not content). Behaviorally, this is a net positive. He made the distinction himself. If he eventually stops misbehaving, that's a win with teeth. If he tries to ask for an unblock, or much later come back to ask for a good faith reinstatement, he cannot then claim he took no responsibility. Neither might he claim he was unfairly heard. These are wins for Wikipedia. Fairness and the appearance of fairness are not the same thing, but are both essential to the success of civility. More importantly, my contribution helped take Steven1991 away from the personalization he was employing against you and others with whom he was disagreeing.

I could have blocked indef myself, but decided other editors like yourself were already reading the situation properly. El_C and Liz were watching. In my limited experience, Steven1991's admission made a greater impact on the user than any closure and block. Not just for him, but for others who read it after. It's important for potential bad actors to see AGF isn't willful blindness to harm; it's just our social norm for allowing bad actors to self-identify for appropriate admin action when they make deliberate and repeated poor choices. BusterD (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, no, I absolutely have no issue with you. And I do appreciate admins/sysops who want to be sure editors are given the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, as well as your general philosophy expressed here around both AGF and defusing Steven's approach.

When there are threads like that one at ANI when we begin to consider a proposed sanction, inevitably we (by which I mean the community at large, not you in specific) have a tendency to become very focused on what is fair to the editor in question vs. the encyclopedia itself. The brouhaha over me and M.Bitton and SPIs and all the sealioning really pulled the focus away from the much more serious bitey harassment Steven had directed toward those less able to defend themselves.

In cases like this, where I see someone abusing our processes specifically to bully and harass very new editors, I feel like a part of the refocusing that needs to occur when we consider sanctions is remembering that we are also sending a message to those new editors (who explicitly told us they felt persecuted and that no one was listening to them) about whether or not they can count on us to actively protect them. For me, despite calling for a particular sanction, it was less about which specific sanction was applied than the message (not just to Steven, but to those other two editors) that the collective "we" were applying it, whether Steven agreed to it or not. I've started feeling more and more strongly about this principle in general the past couple of years, so my last-minute addition was intended to get it preserved in that discussion (should it need to be called up again in the future for another Steven concern) and to have it in writing for those two editors to see, rather than about trying to dispute your kindness to Steven or to quarrel with your approach.

Far from having any issue with you, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in the ANI discussion and in the posts I saw you had made on a couple of user talkpages, urging calm and restraint. Grandpallama (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion reminded me of my New Page Patrol training, I'm proud to say conducted by User:Atsme (another editor with whom I was often happy to disagree). The question was about AGF. It was new in my admin career. Here's what I wrote to her: On the merits, Assuming Good Faith is a behavioral guideline, the heart of our community's civility policy. It is certainly wiser longterm to assume mere incompetence or honest disagreement than ascribing malicious intent. Interpreting intent is never a great starting place for free exchange of ideas, and if written in talk-space or edit summary may actually cause the writer to be admonished, blocked or banned. When I see behavior which I may well characterize as bad behavior, assuming good faith gives me a superior platform for discussion. We may be shown we merely misread or didn't understand the context of disagreement. We may find our original position was itself in error. We may discover either position might shift based on issues presented during good faith discussion. On the other hand, in a comparatively rare situation we may find prohibited behavior, socking, COI, gaming the system. Because we have done our best to eliminate alternative solutions, the community can feel fully justified when confronted with actual bad behavior to stomp that shit out. (apologies for BOLD use of irregular language here) Years later, I feel pretty good about how little my attitude has changed on the subject. BusterD (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is ever my reluctance to exercise the italicized words (until required) which which motivates my AGF. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpallama, please forgive me for "crashing" your enlightening discussion with BusterD, who I've always perceived as a deep thinker, but often entertaining...and quite challenging. While I can't recall any substantive disagreements between us—mostly just fun pokes at one another—I do remember looking forward to his responses. It may be a bit of a ^[stretch], but engaging with BusterD is like trying to juggle while riding a unicycle: you might stumble a bit, but you always end up with a good story and maybe a few more laughs! I appreciate his commitment to assuming good faith. BusterD, let's keep those "disagreements" coming—it's healthy discourse, and the only workout my sense of humor gets these days! Atsme 💬 📧 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Greatest of apologies bro, huge misclick. TheWikiToby (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently took to my talk page stating that I had stated incorrect information on John Wick. You repeatedly do so, though you are disputing the facts that the filmmaker says on the video interview. You threatened to involve an admin... though I haven't done anything wrong. Instead I encourage you to take part in the discussion I am adding to the John Wick talk page. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 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) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]