User talk:North8000

910: 2136:

thought that might be useful. I've familiar with TFD's work (for over a decade) and they are one of the most careful, non-emotional, academic and source-based editors that I've interacted with. Their arguments (and mine) are just trying to sort out / discuss the specific narrow topics that you opened the section with. I think that you are misreading this as being about some broader POV struggle. There's nobody there who likes the KKK. IMO there are people who want to make the KKK article be (just) about the KKK. What reinforced my thought about the possible misreading was that quote that you closed you post with is something the to me looks like excellent relevant material for the article but you seemed to mistakenly thinking that the people who want to exclude that (IMHO irrelevant) material that you opened the section with have some broader exclusion goals which they don't have. In short, you may be imagining a battle that does not exist. And that a good way to sort that out would be to not conflate the narrow topic of your post that started that section with the other topics that you are mentioning, and to use the test of relevance to the article to help sort things out. Sincerely,

247:, not about the the particular development authority which is the topic of the article. And for those two, the other 5% is basically trivial information about the specific development authority which probably shouldn't even be in Knowledge. In my opinion what you should do is create a nice article about Development Authorities in India in general. And if you have some non-trivial information about the development authority in a particular city, you could put information into the article about that city. And then I'd suggest getting your other development authority articles in draft space deleted. You should not feel bad about not having a large quantity of articles created. I've had about 68,000 Knowledge edits since 2009, about half of them in article space including taking one of them through Good Article, Featured Article and worldwide "article of the day". And I've only created about 20 new articles, with only about half of those being technically new articles. You are just getting started and have hundreds of new articles and I think are running into the inevitable issues from that and it would be good for you to make the adjustment in your approach. Sincerely, 991: 829: 774: 698: 6428: 7165:(him) in depth. And the main point behind that is to see if there is enough published in-depth material to create a real wiki-article from. So the question isn't how "real world notable" he is, the question is whether or not those 2 sources exist. So if somebody googles a person and finds a whole lot of "hits" that doesn't answer that question. The real work is going through those hits to find the 2 (or maybe 1) sources that fulfill the relevant criteria (or find out that they don't exist). The flip side is that if those 2 (maybe one) sources exist to advise that keeping the article is far simpler than you think.....just identify those two sources and it's a "keep". 901: 3092: 684: 1173:

of individually un-revertable edits is a way to remove scrutiny by making it too time consuming (not the BS "cannot decipher" crap) to review/deal with which is not appropriate in this case. And so a more incremental approach is common practice for these cases, not for my "edification" Please unbundle into individually revertible edits with edit summaries, or take it to talk if you disagree with that approach. I don't know the situation with regards to yourself, but if you are simply NPOV working to improve the article, thank you for your efforts. Sincerely,

3869:

line and planned to put material from both articles into the rail line article. I knew that it would temporarily be a mess, which is what you noted. Then I noticed that the second article was not on the same rail line. That is as far as I got. I think that an article on the rail line (including details and images on the stations) would work out excellently and survive. It turns out that the other station/article is not on this particular rail line. If I receive no response to my question below I plan to circle back and tidy the situation up a bit.

883: 6436: 928: 856: 677: 670: 964: 10158:

reinstating that whole linked bundle including those. Why not just slow down and put those things back in at a pace where they can be reviewed? And the the ones that are are a reach (transferring or assigning credit for invention) take to talk first. You are most familiar with the details of your edits and are in the best position to know those. I'd be happy to discuss at either place, but may I suggest having this general discussion here and any more specific ones at the article? Happy editing! Sincerely,

1045: 10134: 982: 1201:

subject. As such, a lot of the 'see also' and 'external links' sections are bloated with redirection to other (usually negative) articles of Scientology which are unrelated to the topic of the page. Citations have aged and need their URLs updated from current websites or copies gotten from online archives. Many articles suffer from "too many cooks" (including enthusiastic additions by critics and careful excisions by Scientologists) and no longer make any sense when you read them; those need straightening out.

722: 3286:

it.....if I had, that would have helped me assess. So I'd google the topic. Didn't find any in-depth coverage but found enough to know that it's a real/legit topic and which sounds likely to have more substantial off-line coverage. So I'd take a gamble and give it a NPP pass. And I usually like to send the creator a note with a compliment or thanking them for their work. So, in my hypothetical scenario, I wasn't able to confirm that suitable GNG coverage existed, but took a guess/gamble that it does.

4158: 9244: 9211: 8263: 9631: 9619: 9598: 9586: 9265: 9221: 8984: 8333: 8301: 8273: 6289: 5403: 5391: 5370: 5317: 2043: 3749: 51: 22: 919: 892: 4620: 453: 8958: 5296: 7065: 6525: 5232: 4721: 7737:

rock solid by any fair measure. Your temperament is as close to admin perfect as it can practically be. And it's unambiguously clear that your character traits are genuine (not a contrived cell in your body I'm certain). Knowledge is better because of you and the gifts of your time given. Above all else, I sincerely thank you for that. And I would be thrilled to support you for adminship. Having said these things with best regards, I wish you wellness and good cheer.--

4912: 3765: 874: 67: 10313: 10286: 9984: 9957: 9570: 9543: 8160: 8113: 8056: 8029: 8012: 8000: 7958: 7931: 7919: 7856: 7844: 7602: 7281: 7269: 6865: 6608: 6509: 6210: 5891: 5879: 5760: 5733: 5591: 5579: 4244: 4232: 4220: 3684: 3631: 3542: 3515: 3182: 3155: 3143: 3131: 2896: 2869: 2842: 2719: 2707: 2472: 2445: 2418: 2391: 2364: 2337: 2325: 2298: 2271: 2213: 2093: 2005: 1978: 1961: 1934: 1917: 1905: 1572: 1531: 1504: 1477: 1450: 1423: 1396: 1328: 1264: 612: 585: 558: 531: 504: 477: 422: 4693: 314:"Policy" does not dictate what should happen with the municipal corporation articles. So I am just giving my opinion. My opinion is that the facts that are unique to (only for) that particular corporation should be moved to the corresponding city article and then the municipal corporation articles converted into a redirect to the city article. This would be possibility #1. So I listed this and three other possibilities and asked your opinion. Sincerely, 243:

politely and respectfully explain and support what I have to say, including with our differences in native languages. I could give you the short version now if you wish and describe it in more detail later if our wish. Those two articles are about 95% an exact copy of each other (and I think that this is probably the case with all of your development authority articles). And the "95%" which is copied between them is about development authorities in India

767: 760: 6567: 10120: 10042: 1291: 1091: 781: 692: 10085: 10000: 4977: 946: 937: 865: 847: 3853:

planned to put material from both articles into the rail line article. I knew that it would temporarily be a mess, which is what you noted. Then I noticed that the second article was not on the same rail line. That is as far as I got. I think that an article on the rail line (including details and images on the stations) would work out excellently and survive. At this point, what would you prefer to do? Sincerely,

955: 7222:

enjoy their vacation/holidays and I did. Most of the best looking ones are behind paywalls, but as a minimum there are many near-GNG references by top tier sources. They have also expanded the article substantially with enclyclopedic content, also indicative of the addition of in-depth references. While I can't vouch for the most rigorous-interpretation GNG compliance, I have decided to switch to "keep/withdraw"."

3952:

itself. It's now unencyclopedical, contins wrong categories, is still linked to Polish Knowledge article about Wierzbno station, and talks only about this one station, and has basically no information about the railway line itself. You cannot just do that, and hope that somebody else will notice, and ever come to fix that, and write a proper article, because most of the times, nobody does (it's to niche to be notices).

1084: 9487: 4405: 1560: 973: 8466: 3659: 9610: 9256: 8949: 8324: 6280: 5382: 3281:! However that leave me unable to verify suitable GNG coverage. Next I would try to read the article to understand what it is saying / to learn what I can from the topic. I must say that from a typical reader's standpoint, it is rough going. Throughout, your explanations utilize/depend on terms that the reader does not know. Many are linked, but IMO links are to provide 7129:, an article I started a few weeks ago with the intention of coming back to but didn't expect the notability to be questioned. I struggle to see how you could come to the conclusion that he isn't notable if a BEFORE search was conducted. I'm working to improve the article a bit now to at least head-off deletion (with the intent of return to it further later). I found 838: 1000: 8180:

nom, you indicated that is has some low quality sources, I did not review all 57 sources, just enough to confirm GNG compliance. If some (or many) of the other 57 have the problems that you describe, that is not a reason to delete the article or preclude it from mainspace. BTW, I plan to move this thread to my talk page. Sincerely,

4648: 4057:

says. Internal links are generally more "for further reading". Also, you are creating redlinks for plan English words where the target of the redlink is not even in the sentence. I would not consider these items grounds to reject an article, but having an article with a severe problem in this area is a significant problem. Sincerely,

6988:

example, if they have a substantive article on someone that looks like a real article (not posting a bio supplied by the person). So we're basically looking for puplished independent coverage. Do you think that they fall short for that type of thing? Enough so to not look at Times of India when reviewing for GNG coverage?

9048: 1240:} Thanks for the ping, the explanation and your work. My points remain the same and so I won't repeat them. IMO my comments regarding large bundles of edits on controversial article might be useful to you. It ended up well including your most recent set of edits and so again, thanks for your work. Sincerely, 1191:

be blowback on an edit, I usually have more to say than can fit in an edit summary and direct readers to the talk page. The rest of my edits are pretty recognizable and/or non-controversial. By now, I'm pretty sure you've been able to see that the edits I had made in that article were not controversial at all.

820: 10348:

Thanks for the post. I usually like to leave a quick nice note after a NPP review. That was sort of an freak occurrence, (being many reviews of articles by the same person at the same time ). With trying to help on the huge NPP backlog, I usually don't take any extra time to look into the editor or

8663:

Hello Rydex64. I really don't do "respond to request" reviews about current personalities/groups engaged in a business. This one would need a large amount of work going through all of the references to see if there some GNG references which it would need to have in order to pass wp:notability. But

7221:

The creator has increased it from 4 references up to 27 references. They've also asked me to take a look at those/the article as they are away on vacation/holidays. (IMO this mostly means analyzing all of the new references and finding the GNG-best ones per my request above)....happy to help someone

7032:

which is just a fluffy summary of a tweet), do not have an attributed author and are written in the style of a press release which makes me doubt their reliability and neutrality. For most BLPs, companies and TV shows (basically any topic where paid publishing can be a concern) I tend to approach TOI

1651:

Thanks for the post and compliment. I really don't enough about the situation to have an opinion. The universe of Knowledge editing can be a weird alternate universe and often a rough and tumble or nasty one. I don't have the wiki-minutes to take a deep broad dive, but if I can ever advise or help,

1172:

Not that you can make that demand, but it's fine with me. And stop making false accusations of edit warring. Nobody has crossed that line yet but you are much closer to it. It's a highly contentious article with significant warranted concerns about COI edits by Scientology folks. A massive bundle

294:

I think that the best scenario would be to take the small amount of unique material (and sources for it) and moving it to the the corresponding city article. You would need to be the one to do the "move material" work because I don't have enough wiki-minutes to take on that work. Do you want to do

269:

I'd support and help in that plan. Just clarifying, right now we're only talking about the development authority articles. Again, I'll be mostly off wiki until October 24th. But we could start by you picking one of those articles and we could work through the details. Also, I'd probably ask for a

10157:

Thanks for your work and your post. The series of rapid fire edits ended up being entangled where they an't be reviewed/ potentially reverted separately. In that bundle were several which IMO pretty creatively shifted/assigned credit for being the one to pioneer various aspect. So I'm not open to

8179:

I don't know what you mean by the 2nd half of your sentence, but regarding the first half, IMO it's very solid that there is no reason for it to not be in mainspace. And on what is likely the main question, IMO has sourcing to solidly meet GNG, much more solid that a typical new article. In your AFD

7875:

What I did was both OK and appropriate. Including responding to a comment/accusation about me wrongly implying that I was out of line because I participated in a discussion without an invitation. Or I could have reopened it to make it even more official. But it would be improper to revert it. :-)

4056:

To a typical reader, this article is nearly unreadable. Nearly every sentence relies on knowledge on some obscure term to even know what the sentence says. Having an internal link to a term does not change that, a reader should not have to read another article just to figure out what each sentences

3225:

I think that the short answer is yes, (the long answer is that it is not an explicit authority) but I haven't been doing AFC reviews. I think that the (unintended) standard for getting out of AFC is tougher than passing NPP patrol because the AFC reviewer is sort of saying "this article is overall

2153:

excluding him, not entirely, but it's still exclusion. If that's how you want to interpret it, that's up to you. I clarified that I wasn't accusing anyone and that I was talking about under-representation, not disassociation. You seemingly used a misinterpretation as a means to discredit arguments I

1190:

If you have no prior knowledge of my editing work in the Knowledge pages of Scientology, then I invite you to look at my edit history (contributions). FYI, tiny-steps-edits are not my style and don't fit with the way my brain works while trying to update out-of-date articles. When I feel there might

10212:

Well, the issue as I see it is that the proposal claims that it's impossible to have a valid name without reputable academic sources when this is flatly false for millions of species. Before this proposal, you could dismiss self-published sources via WP:V; but if this passes we now have a guideline

10201:

Regarding "how NPP plans to patrol articles on animal species", I don't think that there is an overall plan. Speaking for myself, I'll need to learn / get fluency on that area to evaluate that sourcing. I'm guessing that once I do, patrolling one of those will be 20 times easier than the kinds of

7192:

Admittedly, I was not pleased with being asked to do any "real work" since I'm on holiday this week so finding the 7-day AfD clock during time it would take away from vacation rather than work is not ideal. Not a knock on your work patrolling new articles which must run across a lot of craff. Could

7178:

There might be a bit of a background thing that affected the shortness of my response. Which might be me (possibly mistakenly) assuming that you know all of the above. About the 20 most active NPP'ers need to do about 90% of the review work and right now we're struggling to get through / drowning

7107:

Thanks for that thoughtful post. I think that even the most thorough search in all languages would not result in a keep on the first 5 of those 6 and maybe also the 6th. Discussing all of them would be a long multi-faceted discussion on each of them I'm not able to do here right now. But maybe if

6987:

Do you have much experience with Times of India. I can understand where they they might not be reliable enough for various purposes (such as sourcing something controversial for BLP). But my most common situation is where `I'm evaluating for GNG coverage in the customary degree of stringency. For

3333:

If I were to run across that article during new page patrol, I would pass it. But IMHO it has the same readability problem that I discussed above. A reader could not learn anything from just reading it unless they first know/learn the specialized terms than nearly every sentence is dependent on.

2135:

I didn't write anything by accident nor did I write anything uncivil. I did civilly take issue with one thing that you said about those who feel opposite that you do but even that was just a sidebar to my post. From your apologetic post I think you are being sincere and so I would like to offer a

1612:

I hear what you're saying, but given the very generous way individual edits are interpteted as reverts in general, it isn't clear to me how a revert could emerge in the aggregate from edits that are not themselves reverts, considered separately. But in any event, the "case law" at WP:3RRN is fairly

1218:

took me there and one thing led to another. I hope my transfigured incrementals makes sense to you. Don't, however, expect incrementals from me as a custom. It is my hope that you will recognize the style and worth of my edits and see my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia and be willing

3852:

I was going to AFD the railway station article during NPP (IMO clearly fails wp:notability) but instead thought of using it to start an article on the rail line. I though another station article (with the same problem which I would have also AFD'd) which I thought was on the same rail line and

1200:

Most of the Scientology articles were written in the flush of massive public interest around 2008 when Anonymous came on the scene to protest Scientology. Many of the articles have little "digs" that aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia, and are not necessary for readers to understand the

10197:

Several folks who know this area a lot better than me spent a good amount of time developing the proposal. And so sooner or later it needs to go up for an RFC rather than dying under it's own weight like many discussions do. I think that it pretty clear that people would be open to tweaking it/

7736:

I have often and many times seen and been impressed by your competence, conduct, and clue North8000, and like the others here: I think you would be a very good administrator. I also believe that your RfA would easily succeed as your qualifications are readily obvious, robust and well rounded, and

6259:

The main idea of wp:notability, including the wording choices at N:Music is having the in depth coverage in sources from which to build an article from. Similarly in the discussions at other policies and guidelines even if one made points such as yours regarding the wp:notability condition. This

3868:

Recapping, I was going to AFD the railway station article during NPP (IMO clearly fails wp:notability) but instead thought of using it to start an article on the rail line. There was another station article (with the same problem which I would have also AFD'd) which I thought was on the same rail

376:

So I'm not advocating for deletion of the essay, because I think it can be improved by removing the inaccurate POV I noted above, and I think it would help to have a little more precision in how the essay communicates its core concepts. But we can continue the discussion on the essay Talk page to

10222:

trying to avoid self-published sources (even though they would satisfy the guideline), they may assume that the content in a database is RS and secondary when actually it isn't. I showed that mollusks have essentially zero oversight in the mollusk database -- some species get "valid name" status

242:

I did a substantial amount of work looking at those two articles and then became so busy/buried in real life that I've not had any substantial time for Knowledge, nor will I until approx October 24th. IMO I know what should happen on those, but it will take me about 1 hour that I don't have to

6231:

Thanks for the heads up. It was sitting in the NPP que for almost 4 months and nothing was happening on problems (including a severe one with the title and thus title-defined subject) long noted by others. With the title change it would probably need hours of learning by me or involvement of

3951:

If you wanted to delete the article, you should have had just report it for deletion on the notability basis. If you wanted to creat article about the Piaseczno Railway, you should have had just made a new article. Instead, you just changed the name, without changing any content in the article

3285:

info rather than to make the sentence understandable by a typical reader. So my recommendation would be to add a lot more plain English explanations. So I read the article (without reading/learning all of the linked articles) and really didn't get an understanding of the topic from reading

7179:

in a 15,000 article backlog. With the "real work" part being sorting through a bunch of hits to find the 1-2 sources of the right type, your post could be taken as criticizing me for not doing that work while declining to actually do that work. Either way, thanks for your posts. Sincerely,

1676:

Thank you very much. I was happy to just make broad brush strokes now by way of this introduction, but I do very much appreciate the offer to counsel a little in the future if need be. "Alternate universe" is right! There is great potential for justice here, and indeed I see it happen often.

372:

I also don't think a culture of broad negativity towards attorneys on Knowledge is sufficient to support the specific content, even if the culture still exists, and maybe it should stop if it does. As a lawyer, I think the term 'wikilawyering' is great, but I don't think attorneys should be

10223:

immediately on publication of the primary discovery paper because the author is also a curator for the database, and some species still get this status automatically despite being self-published by someone known to be a taxonomic vandal. We likely have hundreds (maybe thousands? we'd need @

8477:

This award is given in recognition to North8000 for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!

3569:

At the time it was an unsourced BLP violation, and that was explained. As sources became available, I supported the addition. However, your making this post with false accusations (even after you saw ptherwise...that I supported putting it in once sourcing was provided) IS a big problem.

1347:

I wanted to give you a quick response. Going into a meeting in 10 minutes and may not be able to fix until about 2 hours from now. It was my screw-up and I don't know how I made that error. Please accept my apologies. I'll fix or else feel free to beat me to it. Sincerely,

8664:

if you'd like to help pick out the references most likely to be GNG references, I'd be happy to review. This would be to select the 2-3 references which best meet the following criteria: Independent, published sources which cover Tech Panda & Kenzani in depth. Sincerely,

7138:

and there are numerous sources describing his various career moves. If English-speaking editors don't view one of the most high-profile business leaders in what was then the world's second largest economy as obviously notable on Knowledge it's no wonder we have systematic bias.

10174:, thanks! Well, all the edits are backed by important references, and most of them aren't novel, just resurrecting old stuff deleted in a massive edit of 7 August 2024 that (unlike mine) has remained unchallenged so far. At your suggestion, I put it in the article's talk page. 3891:

Don't start messes you don't intend to fix. Tell me, whose now gonna go and write an entire article about Piaseczno Railway? Me? You? Some third person who will stumble onto it in the next 10 years? You cannot just make messy articles like this and hope somebody else will fix

3276:

to review the article. (NPP is basicaly a case of about 20 reviewers trying to review about 500 articles per day) . I'd give the article a quick first read and then look at the references. There is (only) one paragraph on line. The other 2 references are to off-line books.

360:

Unlike Knowledge, the legal world is 90% about technicalities, and a part of a lawyer's job to achieve a result using technicalities. So "wikilawyering" merely means taking a practice that is a good idea in the legal world and moving it into Knowledge where it is a bad

8748:

Thanks for the note. I was thinking that it was obvious because I noted in the edit summary that it was implementing a merged decided at AFD, and the talk page discussed what the source article was. But better to also put it into the edit summary which I didn't do.

4111:

Yeah they were helpful. Yamato no Kuni no Miyatsuko is pretty difficult I think to explain and I will want to do further rewriting of it to make it clearer. btw are your pronouns he/him or is wikipedia just not set up weith them? I thought you had a pic and were a

6260:

article has no such coverage and no such content. IMO it should be merged into the band or album article. I'm going to step away from this one from a NPP standpoint (and also I'm not tagging it) and let someone else review it. Either way, happy editing!

2180:

BTW I don't mean to sound condescending, by linking those logical fallacies. I do agree with and respect the rest of your explanation, but I don't feel as though I am being acknowledged or understood properly, so when I respond sometimes I overcompensate.

7618: 10213:

explicitly endorsing creation of articles based only on one self-published source. You could argue that WP:V overrides this, but then we're already actively flouting WP:PRIMARY so why should we expect people to observe the one policy but not the other?

6321: 6010: 7133:

when I provided numerous sources a bit dismissive particularly as it relates to perpetrating Knowledge's tendency to focus entirely on American/English topics despite being a global resource. Shibata was described (in English) by Reuters as

9695: 6488:

I copied them into the talk page of the draft....is that what you meant? Also, just clarifying, if you wish I could do the AFC review when you resubmit if you pinged me. I'd probably also do the NPP review at the same time. Sincerely,

10198:

modifying it. IMO such a two-step process is probably even the best way to move forward. Get something reasonable in place and then have a separate conversation on where it needs changes. Or maybe it will go fine as currently written.

7581: 6144: 8686: 5968: 5490:. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found 10249:

Starting with the caveat that you have more expertise than me on this.... Let's be pragmatic on this. Positing that it passes, is there a recommended change that you would make? Or let's discuss to potentially develop one.

369:. I think it should be removed because it seems distracting from the main points of the essay. It also does not seem kind nor positive, because it is a stereotype typically perpetuated in service of the denial of civil rights. 7496: 7505: 5996: 5962: 2166:, what would you do? Would you still take the time to try to clear the air in effort to keep things CIVIL? Think about it, unfortunately I won't be responding on the article talk page until this gets sorted out. Cheers. 7470:

Yes, it worked out great and thanks to everyone. Just trying to learn a bit....what does that one run in seconds where the other one wouldn't complete even in hours. Or maybe I was doing something wrong. Sincerely,

6176: 5922: 6040:, 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%. 7514: 5928: 2202:

And I responded to /referred to that statement saying "you open with saying that somebody made the absurd argument to generally exclude David Duke from the article (which I don't see anyone having said anything like

10227:

to query this) of articles sourced only to this database (or that plus the primary source) that have had no documented secondary evaluation at all and yet would be impossible to delete with this guideline in place.

7566: 6116: 6022: 1631: 7160:

Well that was the "#6" that I referred to which could go either way. Long story short, structurally the current question is whether or not there are two (maybe one will do) published independent sources that cover

6102: 7547: 6072: 3226:

fine" where in NPP patrol we are sort of saying "it's OK for an article on this topic to exist." If you have one that you'd like me to look at ping me and I'd be happy to and do my first AFC review. Sincerely,

7590: 7551: 6162: 6078: 5944:, 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. 7320:

in your userspace. Moving forward, a bot will take care of updating the data every 30 days. Plus, you can always grab the latest reports yourself by simply clicking 'Update the table now' whenever you want. –

6130: 7501: 5904: 3292:

There are lots of possibilities here, too many to try to cover in my first post. Maybe a good next step is to ask for any thoughts of yours at this point? (as a prelude to discussing further) Sincerely,

5491: 7561: 6016: 5948: 9978: 9725: 7925: 6622:

The core question is whether or not there are independent sources that cover him in depth. If you could pick out the two references that best do this and ping me I'd be happy to take a look. Sincerely,

5835:

Haha, indeed. In one of them it had been fully 3 weeks in between, I think very understandable. It does look to me like you still have two oppose votes in proposal 4 and two supports in 16, though. --

5754: 2836: 2713: 2439: 2087: 1375:

Thanks! I have an interest in this term-related structurally more than NPOV. In this case it has NPOV impact. In other cases it sows eternal confusion at the article even when there is no NPOV issue.

7542: 6918: 2207: 1630: 416: 6190: 2250: 8050: 7913: 6663:, reference number 30 in current draft. In addition, Ami Dror is a prominent protest leader who is constantly sought after by television media, and radio. Your help would be greatly appreciated. -- 4238: 1999: 1911: 1899: 1498: 9708: 5448:, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas. 8107: 7952: 5727: 5522: 5508: 3509: 3149: 3137: 1928: 5452: 7576: 5982: 4661: 2243:

For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

1444: 7596: 3737: 552: 7532: 6058: 9768: 9512: 909: 6967:

Thanks for the post and info. I'm a bit confused in a couple ways......I didn't work on / edit the article. I left a note but didn't review it and you did. But thanks for the info.

5501:. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. 3201:. And some thinking by the crowd that the referred to emerging-science that is overtaking widely accepted folklore widely presumed to be science-based but which has no basis in science. 6347: 4430: 7523: 6044: 4700: 4035: 4638: 9564: 8006: 7994: 6503: 3125: 2701: 2412: 1972: 5897: 5502: 1955: 1805: 6799: 5146: 4293: 9691: 9301: 7803:

I'm only seeing this now, good idea! Didn't know you weren't an admin yet. My email is open if you'd like to get some private feedback or talk about about a nomination.

6155: 8700:, Sorry for the ping! I think the previous message might have slipped through your mind. Could you please take a look when you have a couple of minutes? Thanks a lot! :) 8383: 5445: 1829:

The edit must either be entirely within an existing section (it cannot have new section headers in the middle) or start a new section (starts with a new section header).

7130: 6807: 5348: 5343: 5249: 4833: 7715:

North8000 is one of the remarkable page reviewers I've ever seen. The fast yet accurate is giving. You're now the third I'm owing a rock and I support all about you.

7398: 6914: 5427: 4135:

Cool. I have on my user page "I live in the USA and (to simplify the pronoun question for folks) am male." but beyond that I don't participate in stating pronouns.

1801: 9883: 9120: 9104: 8819: 8539: 8515: 6300: 6295: 4801: 4502: 4486: 2726: 9655: 9378:

STORM: AI agents role-play as "Knowledge editors" and "experts" to create Knowledge-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

9297: 9227: 9015: 9000: 8995: 8990: 6910: 4759:

I don't agree that "I think it's time for you to mellow out. That would be much more pleasant for everybody, including you. " is an unproductive remark. Sincerely,

9758: 9732: 9537: 9479: 8566: 8284: 8279: 6892:

My Wiki minutes are limited, but if you could help a bit..... In your case it needs to have GNG sources, which means published independent sources that cover the

5698:

Thanks. I figured that we need to have it start somewhere, and in order to serve it's purpose, where interested people can be in and keep themselves in Sincerely,

5573: 4325: 2946: 6186:, 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. 4050: 2158:. That is not something I get bent out of shape over because it isn't typically uncivil. Where it crossed the line was calling it "absurd" (your word) which adds 1787:

Thanks. There was one where I did it wrong and then fixed it a few minutes later. Is that the one that you are referring to? or did I make another error. :-)

10427: 10140: 9875: 9377: 8899: 8835: 8735: 8558: 8523: 8375: 6815: 5617: 5170: 4785: 4550: 4510: 3289:

For this particular article, an AFC reviewer has already declined it so me jumping in would be a case of saying that I'm using my guess to override their review.

3212: 2577: 2553: 5409: 10435: 10407: 10383: 10307: 9951: 9907: 9859: 9417: 9401: 9393: 9112: 8907: 8803: 8795: 8590: 8582: 8507: 8336: 8023: 7125:

I also don't consider myself qualified to evaluate the notability of most of the examples I provided: I don't speak those languages. My interest was piqued by

7024: 6823: 6791: 5649: 5641: 5609: 5186: 5130: 4849: 4809: 4793: 4542: 4470: 4462: 4333: 4277: 3678: 3197:

You behavior was fine by real world standards but (possibly in good faith.....ala "take it to talk") not by Wiki standards. With the most likely issue being

2962: 2914: 2601: 2561: 2385: 2358: 2319: 2292: 1471: 136: 9712: 8974: 8681:, Oh apologies, I forgot to mention they're an Electronic music group/band. And surely, I will select the 3 best references for you to review easily. Here - 8345: 8312: 7485: 5337: 5264: 5245: 3834: 2234: 1837:

Thus, if you forget to add a ping, or get it wrong, the easiest thing to do is revert your reply entirely and then add it again with a working ping. Cheers.

5333: 2802: 10375: 10280: 9867: 9524: 9369: 9136: 8827: 8531: 8353: 8154: 8018: 7850: 7838: 7275: 7263: 6859: 6783: 6602: 6459: 6204: 5978:, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting. 5885: 5873: 5625: 5585: 5154: 4825: 4478: 4442: 4285: 4226: 4214: 3973:

Again no answer to my very reasonable question. This is far simpler and easier to resolve than you seem to think. Again, what would like to happen next?

3721:

Thanks! Suggest putting in what you just told me....copy from the viewed page, not the edit page. Also note that it's either one or the other...not both.

3625: 3536: 3176: 3116: 2922: 2890: 2863: 2569: 2466: 2331: 2265: 2078: 1566: 525: 9674: 6216: 5482: 373:

inaccurately portrayed to make the point about wikiconduct, and I think a more accurate portrayal of the legal profession can make the point more clearly.

10391: 10224: 9899: 6952: 5049: 2938: 1525: 1417: 1390: 1322: 1258: 633: 606: 579: 498: 7897: 7870: 4673: 4378: 2585: 7896:

Thank you for nice response. Well, now that you say it, I will let you keep that comment of yours, especially to use an answer to resolve a conflict.

3673: 9891: 9808: 9214: 9152: 9020: 8875: 8411: 8396: 6580: 6483: 4857: 4558: 4534: 4081:

article. I see both of them were recently accepted. I noticed somehow the reply function broke so I am unsure what happened (unsigned by Immanuelle)

3609:

You are oblivious to what I was saying but we ended up with something that was fine with both of us. So all's well that ends well. Happy editing!

2199:

You made the following statement: "While I don't agree with the explanations I've been given as to why excluding David Duke from the KKK article...."

471: 9576: 7030: 6006:, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured. 5562: 3272:

That one has a few things that make it complicated. Let's say that it wasn't already at AFC and I ran across it as a harried NPP'er who has about

10202:

situations that we are already dealing with. Like in gng-dependent sports articles where the standard is technically GNG but in practice it isn't.

9464: 9385: 9232: 9144: 8843: 8811: 8266: 5633: 5302: 5162: 4841: 4817: 4494: 4301: 2930: 9351: 9009: 6232:

someone more knowledgeable on the topic than me to figure out what to do next. Either way it still has "waiting for NPP" flag on it. Sincerely,

5286: 377:

seek more input from other editors - I just wanted to start by chatting with you because it is one of your contributions to the essay. Thank you,

10415: 10399: 9785: 9409: 9328: 9063: 8891: 8859: 8851: 8614: 8547: 8427: 8307: 7027: 6405: 6382: 6217: 5539: 5138: 4518: 3936:

Also, as a sidebar, you had numerous implied accusations like "don't intend" which are pretty creative, particularly in light of what I wrote.

3652: 2954: 284: 9642: 9637: 9622: 9086: 8450: 7193:

you take another look at the article now? I believe notability should be apparent now although I'll continue slowly reviewing Japanese sources.

5353: 3913:

That's not an answer to my question, which seems a very reasonable one. In light of my response, what would like to happen next? Sincerely,

10449: 10128: 9929: 9915: 9442: 9428: 9174: 9160: 8921: 8883: 8628: 8606: 8289: 6837: 5663: 5200: 4879: 4588: 4574: 4566: 4384: 4355: 4341: 2976: 2615: 2593: 1599:

I read that differently. That if a combination of consecutive edits is a revert, it's still a revert even if each one alone is not. Sincerely,

332: 9201: 5435:

Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (

3696:

Very good feedback. Thank you. I wrote it to be copy/pasted from the viewed page, not the edit page. Do you think quotation marks would help?

9790: 9333: 9128: 9068: 9005: 8969: 8867: 8598: 8574: 8432: 6572: 6387: 5544: 5414: 5178: 4865: 4526: 4317: 4309: 2762:. I don't have to go and add them into the article. We are evaluating the subject's notablity, not the quality of the article. Please review 311:"Policy" dictated that the development authority articles shouldn't exist, and so I just implemented "policy" and turned them into redirects. 9601: 9589: 6274: 5394: 8456: 8349: 7964: 3188: 10349:

even notice the editor's name. But for the reasons I noted, it's no biggee and easy to do to avoid those unusual occurrences. Sincerely,

9247: 8943: 8253: 6310: 3805: 107: 10465: 7862: 6475: 5328: 2992: 2235: 366:

Hi North8000, I decided to write on your Talk page because I had reviewed some of the edit history and noticed you had added the content

9945: 9291:. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked. 8487: 6305: 5711:

BTW if we went back farther, there would be only one person in the running. So we're trying to create more folks doing that. Sincerely,

4992: 4604: 10205:

After the (presumed positive) close, if you have an idea on a change to improve it, I'd be happy to work on it with you and support it.

9780: 9323: 9058: 8422: 7108:

you could pick one of theme to have a more in-depth discussion on I'd be happy to do that and I think it would be helpful. Sincerely,

6377: 5534: 5307: 5216: 4895: 4371: 2687:

Thanks for the post. I know that sometimes that is the case but it also puts the message on the talk page of the article. Sincerely,

2053: 9458: 6094:, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the 2631: 6896:(Varun Sunil) In depth. Could you pick out the 2-3 sources in the article that you think best fulfill this requirement? Sincerely, 6853: 6452: 6411: 3109: 2071: 654:

Thanks for the compliment of assuming I know so many things. Unfortunately I don't know anything about the conference. Sincerely,

9190: 8540:

Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

5679: 298:

If not, my #2 choice would be for me to simple convert the articles into redirects as I did with the development authority articles.

8937: 8644: 5373: 5358: 3400:

force would make them repel each other, tending to make the nucleus fly apart. But at the close distances within the nucleus, the

2815: 9268: 3013:(Rather than a direct nasty overreach like accusing of accusing a particular editor of "Making a habit out of" and "disruptive") 7608: 7317: 3961: 3901: 2533: 1153: 401:

Of course! and I will try to draft some proposed text over the next few days for a little more precision in the wording. Cheers,

10453: 9933: 9446: 9178: 8925: 8632: 8365:

feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title.

7629: 6841: 6095: 5822:

I felt better when I saw that I gave edge case answers ("weak ...." and "Neutral") on the one where I had different positions!

5667: 5204: 4883: 4592: 4359: 2980: 2619: 2939:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no paywall, for thou, Knowledge Library, art with me

10480: 9741: 8964: 6717:

Nice work. I moved it to article space and NPP reviewed.Left a post at talk referencing this thread regarding GNG sourcing.

4123: 3991: 3790: 3774: 1859:

Thanks much for your post. I learned from it. I thought that you just needed a new signature and a new ping. Sincerely,

92: 76: 8362: 10461: 9941: 9804: 9454: 9347: 9186: 9082: 8933: 8640: 8446: 7721: 7384:

I import into MS Access, so almost any structured file will do. But let's say Excel or .csv. If this is possible, thanks!

6849: 6401: 5675: 5558: 5323: 5280: 5212: 4891: 4600: 4367: 3669: 2988: 2627: 9523:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

7710: 7401:

to download it as a CSV file. Just copy and paste the URL of the table page, then click on the send button. That’s all. –

6337:

The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (

4441:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

3394:

More explanatory...a person can learn something from reading it even if they do not know the meanings of the linked terms:

990: 367: 7346:

Wow! Thanks. Is there a way I can export it to a file? Because that's how I was doing what I was doing. Sincerely,

7077:

I would really appreciate your efforts at NPP. You are really a great new page patroller. Please keep up the good work!

2493: 1334: 10363: 9751: 8763: 6357: 5039: 4964: 4942: 3563: 2902: 1622: 1316: 8532:

National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Knowledge article ought to say

6246: 2819: 10142: 9847: 8241: 8218: 8203: 7905: 7696: 7437: 7414: 7372: 7334: 7311: 7042: 7010: 6784:

Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV

5095: 5081: 4702: 4450: 4002: 2779: 2190: 2175: 443: 7798: 6737:, thank you so much for your help but I now see that it has been nominated for deletion. Why are they doing this? -- 2026: 1731:

as folk singers? I say "No" but it is always nice to meet a bold person who is actually willing to make the edits.

6596: 5915: 5118: 4773: 4265: 4208: 3491: 3475: 3321: 3260: 3065: 3042: 2114: 10101: 10069: 10035: 10016: 9504:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

4422:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

4091:

Cool. Hope my comments helped even if they were friendly-blunt. Wish you the best and happy editing! Sincerely,

148:" articles at the same time. Could we do it that way......i.e. give me a link to a second one when you are ready? 10457: 10274: 10183: 10113: 9937: 9800: 9450: 9357: 9343: 9182: 9078: 8929: 8636: 8442: 7988: 7673: 6845: 6546: 6397: 5844: 5817: 5790: 5671: 5554: 5253: 5208: 4887: 4596: 4363: 4030: 3665: 2984: 2804: 2623: 2541: 2257: 1740: 1718: 7746: 7001:(In response to your first question), PageTriage does list you as the reviewer (which is why I sent this note). 5487: 4180:

Nope, just an image that I liked due to a combination of several things. I'm a lot older and uglier than that.

773: 10133: 9678: 8710:

Sorry I missed that you already looked. The first is just to the article but I did review it. Happy editing!

8101: 7812: 7249: 7202: 7148: 6771: 4045: 3075: 2524:

Thanks, sorry about my approach, this has been pointed out to me. Just wanted to loop you into the discussion.

1686: 1552: 220:

Sorry, I didn't realize that you had provided two development authority articles as I requested. Will do.

9092: 8148: 7659: 7126: 7019:

for notability purposes is to take each and every individual article on a case by case basis. In the case of

6929: 6746: 6672: 6350:

to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

5685: 5597: 3091: 2529: 1882: 1847: 1211: 1077: 1027: 828: 9044: 7086: 6681:

Are all 3 of those references currently in the article? (please be sure to answer this question even if not)

5498: 5004: 4952: 4743: 2507:

I'd be happy to take a look and see what I think. In your approach to these things I'd suggest reading

10444: 10097: 10012: 9924: 9437: 9281: 9169: 8916: 8783: 8623: 8495: 7826: 6832: 6792:

A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law

6537:

For being one of the best reviewer. Your work is not going unnoticed. You are doing good work! Keep it up!

5658: 5465: 5195: 4874: 4583: 4559:

Local editor discovered 1,380 lost subheadings in ancient Signpost scrolls. And what he found was shocking.

4350: 2971: 2610: 1069: 810: 706: 301:

The other possibility is for you to just do whatever you wish to do next with these without my involvement.

9668:

applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past

9031: 9030:

Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript.

8690: 9288: 9196: 4078: 4016:

I was off the grid for a few days and it will be a couple days before I get caught back up in Knowledge.

3957: 3897: 3813: 3700: 2998: 2672: 1228: 1123: 115: 6656: 6427: 3705: 2162:

on top of the misrepresentation. Now try to look at it from my perspective. If my response to you was...

697: 10428:

Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Knowledge editors

10237: 10075: 9473: 7706: 7287: 6554: 6362: 5469: 4709: 4040: 2725: 1894: 1362: 465:

Happy belated Thanksgiving to an old friend. Hope you snag some good black Friday deals for Christmas!

10376:

Courts order Knowledge to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

7664:

Seconding this, I've seen your work around in NPP, I've found most of your work to be pretty solid :)

6705: 6648: 3664:

There is a backlog of over 1300 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help!

3306:

Thank you. I’ll work on trying to make that one more comprehensible. What do you think about this one

972: 683: 8483: 5626:

The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record

4988: 4393: 2741:

If the sources exist, why don't you just put them in the article instead of writing posts like this?

1967: 900: 745: 7626:

You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an

410: 386: 9990: 9702: 8650: 8403: 8124: 7055: 6515: 6366: 6172:, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators. 3743: 2673: 2251:

Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

45: 10384:

Indian courts order Knowledge to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

10029: 1215: 1012: 9763:

is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the

5016: 9113:

Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

7742: 6886: 6542: 5222: 5012: 4960: 4708: 4463:

Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Knowledge article?

3968: 3953: 3908: 3893: 3847: 2525: 2502: 1638: 1618: 1137: 9767:. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. 5430:

about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

4471:

The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023

8804:

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

7901: 7793: 7702: 7669: 7409: 7367: 7329: 7038: 7006: 5515: 5091: 4984: 3205: 3198: 2829: 2775: 2186: 2171: 1923: 1032: 9243: 9210: 8262: 6909:

Hi, Definitely. I understand. Sharing few GNG Sources for you to review them easier. Here's

3194:

Your behavior was fine by both Knowledge real world standards and the result was a travesty.

1754:

I have no expertise on them but their articles make zero mention of such and so I'd say no.

736:

Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023!

10109: 9764: 9630: 9618: 9597: 9585: 9264: 9220: 8983: 8743: 8479: 8332: 8300: 8272: 6468: 6288: 5610:

Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"

5455:

for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at

5402: 5390: 5369: 5316: 4732:

For over 360 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you!

4205: 4120: 3488: 3472: 3318: 3257: 3037: 2508: 1774: 8812:

How the Russian Knowledge keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

5468:

will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The

8: 10270: 10233: 10179: 9105:

Internet users flock to Knowledge to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

6338: 5840: 5813: 5436: 4751: 4740: 4669: 4610: 4377: 1736: 1065: 353: 8723:

Oops! Sorry haha, It was an accident. But, thanks for the review. Appreciate it! Cheers.

5171:

Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining "

10053: 10021: 9916:

Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

9860:

WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

9820:

I didn't think I was a member of that project but I'd be happy to look at the article.

9277: 7245: 7198: 7144: 7020: 6614: 4686: 3839: 3716: 3401: 3361: 2955:

Strange portal opened by CERN researchers brings Knowledge articles from "other worlds"

2682: 2159: 1682: 1285: 882: 753: 649: 406: 382: 8957: 7762:

Thanks. I'd be happy to serve but it's a big decision to go through the RFA process.

5992:, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings. 5295: 4286:

Turmoil on Hebrew Knowledge, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns

2784:

See my previous post. If you think so, then put them into the article and settle it.

10191: 9507:

Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.

9035: 8607:

Knowledge rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

7822: 7717: 7082: 6742: 6701: 6668: 6644: 6538: 6469: 6037: 5766: 5023: 5008: 4956: 4926: 3396:

Since the protons within a nucleus of an atom are positively charged particles, they

3307: 2578:

The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Knowledge

1880: 1845: 1614: 1300: 1020: 999: 927: 803: 741: 712: 10265:

I detailed some changes that should happen in a reply somewhere in that discussion.

6435: 3208:

and maybe strongly pushing ideas (aside from the above) which are actually fringier.

1044: 855: 9735:

is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

8387: 8225: 8211: 8196: 8174: 7786: 7680: 7665: 7465: 7421: 7402: 7379: 7360: 7341: 7322: 7295: 7034: 7002: 6982: 6962: 5087: 5065: 4752: 3997: 3461: 2771: 2763: 2736: 2182: 2167: 2130: 184:

article because I also wanted to deal with the commonalities. Do you have another

9501:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.

5958:, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections. 4647: 10105: 7808: 7757: 7738: 7701:

Why not, please? North8000 is an expensive editor and I admire your work at NPP.

7135: 6325: 6254: 6068:, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote. 6033: 4948: 4198: 4175: 4130: 4113: 4086: 4011: 3481: 3465: 3328: 3311: 3267: 3250: 3220: 3049: 3029: 3006: 1816:

of these conditions are fulfilled in the edit where you place the ping template:

1370: 1224: 1159: 981: 352: 9663: 8366: 5918:

reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.

4197:

I think your signature is broken since I can reply to my comments but not yours

3028:

Sorry you felt I was nasty, that was not my intent. I've changed the heading. ––

10266: 10244: 10229: 10175: 10171: 10152: 9814: 9498:

On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.

9121:

Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

8697: 8678: 7972: 7891: 7458: 7016: 6922: 6732: 6691: 6638: 6615: 6329: 5836: 5809: 5774: 5693: 4734: 4665: 4278:

Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following posts on Wikipediocracy

4194: 4163: 4157: 4106: 4072: 3886: 3782: 3397: 3365: 3247: 3241: 2825: 1749: 1732: 1702: 1671: 1219:

to try to decipher atypical diffs rather than request exhaustive explanations.

1061: 797: 306:

I don't think that you understood my post. Here is what the main points were:

264: 237: 175: 84: 10218:

The point I was trying to make with the last sentence is that even if someone

9876:

Simulated Knowledge seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

2822:, etc. Could you please explain me why are you thinking of deleting this page? 2042: 963: 721: 676: 669: 10474: 9682: 9659: 8208:

See what the Afd says I guess. I can't believe I posted to your user page.

8085: 7241: 7209: 7194: 7155: 7140: 7102: 6559: 5568: 4826:

What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human being at Knowledge?

3824: 3590: 3011:

I had a purpose in mind, and chose a lighthearted/indirect way to pursue it.

2767: 2759: 2511:

so that your efforts will be in compliance with that guideline. Sincerely,

1806:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Proposal to Indef DBachmann

1678: 1646: 1342: 1033: 402: 378: 126: 21: 5511:

is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with

4487:

Arabic Knowledge blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI

4416:

On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

2915:

Wikimedia power sharing – just an advisory role for the volunteer community?

9746: 8705: 8658: 8132: 7818: 7643: 7078: 6926: 6738: 6712: 6697: 6664: 6655:", references 32 & 33 respectively on the current draft. There is also 6555: 5497:

Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the

5456: 4619: 2637: 1874: 1854: 1839: 1782: 1724: 918: 891: 737: 452: 7817:

I really believe that you will pass your RFA with flying colors. Regards!

7064: 6524: 5231: 4720: 39: 8166: 7094: 5521:. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. 3586: 864: 338:

Maybe I'll move them as articles. I'm going to ask for advice at NPP.

6445: 4911: 4692: 3102: 2060: 873: 639: 9979:

Feedback request: Knowledge policies and guidelines request for comment

8193:

Sorry, I posted this really quickly. I thought it was your talk page.

7926:

Feedback request: Knowledge policies and guidelines request for comment

7804: 6751:

I'm not going to hypothesize. See my comments at the AFD. Sincerely,

6365:, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve 6126:, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum. 5755:

Feedback request: Knowledge policies and guidelines request for comment

3690: 2837:

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

2714:

Feedback request: Knowledge policies and guidelines request for comment

2440:

Feedback request: Knowledge policies and guidelines request for comment

2208:

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

2088:

Feedback request: Knowledge policies and guidelines request for comment

1694: 1593: 1235: 1220: 1167: 1118: 1083: 819: 766: 759: 417:

Feedback request: Knowledge policies and guidelines request for comment

9833:

Found it....got invited 13 years ago and said I was more libertarian.

3764: 2164:"I didn't write anything by accident nor did I write anything uncivil" 1290: 780: 691: 66: 10100:, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made 10015:, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made 8508:

Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

8077: 6660: 6652: 5795:

It's hard to keep track with a gigantic page with about 40 proposals.

5472:

of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically

2155: 1728: 945: 936: 9884:

Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

8051:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

7914:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

5473: 4419:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

4239:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

2000:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

1912:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

1900:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

1499:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

1445:

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

1090: 393:

Should include using P&G's for other than their intended purpose

10343: 10334: 9287:

Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via

9137:

What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

8108:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

7953:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

7597:

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

6226: 5728:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

5057: 4976: 3738:

Daily tip - trying to figure out how to make this appear at the top

3510:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

3150:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

3138:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

3015:

Either way I don't plan to do any more of those there. Sincerely.

2758:. I am showing that there are sources, and that the subject passes 1929:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

1613:

clear that consecutive edits always count as only a single revert.

1100: 553:

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

8230:

No sweat. Wish you the best and thanks for your work. Sincerely,

7582:

Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process

3204:

Your behavior was outrageous by Wiki standards .....maybe extreme

2149:

I'll clarify my so-called "absurd argument" for you. It's because

1832:

The number of users to be pinged must be equal to or less than 50.

1819:

The edit must add new lines of text, not just edit existing lines.

846: 10119: 10084: 10041: 9999: 9754:

reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.

9312: 8559:

ChatGPT did not kill Knowledge, but might have reduced its growth

7050: 5155:

Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Knowledge, race in the race

4901: 3585:

You have a lot of things backwards. See previous response. Also

2643:

Thanks for the reminder. I'll do some housecleaning. Sincerely,

1129: 954: 8876:

On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

8682: 6696:, the answer is yes. All three references are in the article. -- 6182: 4660:

Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's

3741: 1559: 1060:

article reviews during 2022. Well done! Keep up the good work! -

43: 9532: 9486: 6136: 4404: 2122: 8465: 8137:

Looks like someone already did it. Happy editing! Sincerely,

6084: 4664:! You made a total of 40 reviews, for a total of 67.5 points. 4639:

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive

4334:

And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain

6028: 6002: 5070:

I have some ideas but I'm buried in RL for the next 2 hours.

4036:

As an experienced NPP reviewer (and more recent AFC reviewer)

1707:

Thanks. It looks like I have it (Vaughan) right. Sincerely,

9720: 9609: 9280:

may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may

9255: 8948: 8352:

has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in

8323: 7977:

Nice to hear from you again! Looks like all is going well.

6279: 6150: 6054:, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections. 6050: 5898:

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

5381: 5131:

Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail

837: 9565: