This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/56.
Regarding this edit: I imagine you hope that regardless of the outcome of the request for administrative privileges, the candidate may learn from the raised concerns? The conditional in your statement makes it seem otherwise. isaacl (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this, and for Isaacl's benefit, that I'm surprised that you, as a once respected veteran Wikipedian, Bureaucrat, and prolific content creator 'par excellence' do not understand the differences between policies, guidelines, essays, and so called rules made up on the fly, and then voting 'as per' without doing your own research and checking the veracity of laundry lists of others who are determined to destroy an RfA because of the non existent rules some users perceive as policies - a logical fallacy. Kudpung เธเธธเธเธเธถเนเธ (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was strictly regarding clarity of the message, and shouldn't be construed as support for the message. Please don't feel a need to provide comments for my benefit. isaacl (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. I was under the impression that there was indeed a rule about contesting drafts, but apparently I was mistaken. There are many minutiae about Wikipedia and drafts did not exist at all when I was mostly active as an admin from 2004-2011 or so. In my view there should be a rule that a contested draft should not be re-draftified, similar to PRODs. I think enough reasonable concerns were raised in this RFA by other still-respected admins that I am not alone on this. The RFA may still yet succeed, but I do not think you should assume that legitimate concerns are "determined to destroy" the RFA either way. Andre๐04:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What may be 'in your view' is not a reason to oppose an RfA so vehemently on a rule that does not exist even if you believe it should. RfA is not the venue to create new polices for the benefit of the voters and giving them right. If you want to establish such a view, what we do nowadays on Wikipedia is to hold a site-wide RfA and let the community decide, but bear in mind that there are 750 New Page Reviewers who will vote for what they know best from their vast anecdotal experience. The reviewers handle literally hundreds of thousands of new pages and they know best how to proceed in all situations - especially the edge cases, and it is the rare edge cases that some voters have deliberately singled out to destroy the good faith of a user who has done more to modernise NPP than I did 11 years ago. Hence any concerns voiced about non observance of rules that do not and never existed are certainly not legitimate.I'm not Wikilawyering, but am sure that you as a user with once the highest rank as a former Bureaucrat will understand that. It's just rather shameful that an RfA can be torpedoed on 'as per' the one vote that got it it all completely wrong (and incidentally I do have the proof). If it goes to a 'crat chat, let's hope that today's bureaucrats are up to date and get it right. Kudpung เธเธธเธเธเธถเนเธ (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But again, Kudpung, RFA is about more than simply whether a user followed the policy on the books, and these are legitimate concerns about attention to detail and how experienced users deal with new articles from new users. I stand by the concerns. Andre๐13:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "wait and see" is likely to be the best, here. The reviewer's remit is to accept borderline drafts if they believe there is a better than 50% chance of it's surviving an immediate deletion process. I think this has a 55% chance, and will be edited down by the community which will raise the probability.
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia articleโthat is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Wiens and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Andrevan!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is obvious? I did due diligence so please WP:AGF. If there is an issue, please enlighten me. If it meets GNG and you are an experienced user, why submit through AfC?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did come across that way but so does a lot of things in Wikipedia so no offense taken and no apology necessary. I actually do not look at user pages of a submitter in most cases and the message above is auto generated. I also understand what you mean by circumventing the process although I don't think you would get any flack from other editors if you moved it to mainspace. The worse case would be someone recommending it for AfD. I will take a closer look at the discussion later today and provide input. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally reasonable to move it to mainspace. It may take its chances there. I am almost certain it will arrive at AfD. I intend to stay neutral in any further discussion. ๐บ๐ฆย FiddleTimtrentย FaddleTalkย toย meย ๐บ๐ฆ 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Wikipedia Day 2023 at Jefferson Market Library in Greenwich Village, a Wikipedia and Public Domain Day celebration and mini-conference as part of birthday festivities marking the project's founding in 2001. In addition to the party, the event features presentations by Jason Scott of the Internet Archive and Anne Hunnell Chen of the International (Digital) Dura-Europos Archive, panels, and, of course, lightning talks. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
After 5PM, migration to afterparty at Ace Hotel, 20 West 29th St
Livestreaming is likely, watch the wiki meetup page
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. New York Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.
Hello, Andrevan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Will Boyd, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
In the Vector 2022 skin, logged-out users using the full-width toggle will be able to see the setting of their choice even after refreshing pages or opening new ones. This only applies to wikis where Vector 2022 is the default. [2]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 February. It will be on all wikis from 9 February (calendar).
Previously, we announced when some wikis would be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. These switches will not be announced any more, as the read-only time has become non-significant. Switches will continue to happen at 7AM UTC on Tuesdays and Thursdays. [3]
Across all the wikis, in the Vector 2022 skin, logged-in users will see the page-related links such as "What links here" in a new side menu. It will be displayed on the other side of the screen. This change had previously been made on Czech, English, and Vietnamese Wikipedias. [4]
Gadgets and user scripts will be changing to load on desktop and mobile sites. Previously they would only load on the desktop site. It is recommended that wiki administrators audit the gadget definitions prior to this change, and add skins=โฆ for any gadgets which should not load on mobile. More details are available.
Hello Andrevan. I asked you about your closure of an RFC. Although I {{ping}}ed you you did not respond so I am asking here. You provided the closure justification-
There is a reasonable consensus that the RFC question is not answerable as it does not pose a constructive question relating to a change to the article or a question of fact. The question is not neutral and leading per WP:RFCNEUTRAL since it jumps to a conclusion as to the implication of a truth value of a statement.
Hi Invasive Spices, I assumed that ScottishFinishRadish had said what needed to be said[5] that is my paraphrase of the close - because this was a procedural close based on a consensus (commonly called a "Bad RFC" consensus). The 2nd statement is a suggestion of what kind of improvement you could make to open a new RFC based on policy. If you are objecting to the rationale because it contains a policy interpretation for a procedural close, I could strike the whole thing and replace it with simply the words "Bad RFC - procedural close." Andre๐20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish's reply doesn't resemble your statement and your statement doesn't resemble any opinion in the RFC thread. Certainly SFR's reply did not help and did mislead.
5 users said it was malformed and should be closed. Those who did respond responded to a different question. "Bad RFC" is the Wikipedia jargon for this. Andre๐22:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
