User talk:Nosferattus/Archive 1
Welcome
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Plexippus paykulli - 50959617953.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
|
 |
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Heliconius charithonia 2021.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 03:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Thanks.
editA simple edit that makes for a spectacular illustration. I would not have thought of that. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 05:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Non-binary skateboarders has been nominated for merging
edit
Category:Non-binary skateboarders has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Conventions for "Talk pages"
editGreetings. I noticed that at Talk:Duckpin bowling, you modified your earlier comment by deleting content. That makes for confusing discussions. You should basically be adding to the end of discussions or indenting under another editor's post to which you are responding, or otherwise clarify the history of the discussion. See WP:REDACT. Thanks for your contributions, here and at Commons. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RCraig09: Sorry about that. I reverted the change and added an explanation. Nosferattus (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No problemo. There are many non-obvious conventions on Wikipedia, and it's a learning process. I appreciate your contributions. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gingko biloba, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Gingko biloba shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zefr (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
For you
edit
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| For a clear record of neutrality and integrity against POV-pushing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC) |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:MRNA vaccines against the coronavirus.webm, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
|
RfA 2021 review update
editThanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
- Corrosive RfA atmosphere
- The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
- Level of scrutiny
- Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
- Standards needed to pass keep rising
- It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
- Too few candidates
- There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
- "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
- Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere. - Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas. - RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
editFollowing a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
edit | 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 |
RFA 2021 Completed
editThe 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
- Revision of standard question 1 to
Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation. - A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
- Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
- An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
- An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Removal of image on Non-binary characters in fiction page
editAs I've been meaning to update that page significantly for a while, I don't mind the removal of the chart which you did in a recent edit. I originally added it because I thought it was marginally relevant, but I really have no idea what would be a better image instead. If you can think of a better image, feel free to add it in there instead, as I think the article would benefit from having an image there. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Theban SVG chart uses 1998 computer font
editYou'd said "The SVG characters aren't a 'modern script'" — but please click on one to see their origin: "Own work, created in Inkscape using a freeware font I created in 1998" — so every variation from the 1801 Barrett script is indeed current-generation, not a "historical" form. And even the 1801 Barrett isn't mentioned in the article, which discusses sources centuries older. Regrettably, it follows that this chart is out of place there. – •Raven .talk 00:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)