I'm not using AWB as much as I expected so could I be removed from the AWB access list?
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Done. Please check to make sure I did it properly. I wasn't even aware there was a list, let alone adding or removing entries from it. Seemed simple enough, but you never know.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!
Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:
Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
What's this she/her nonsense? If I am communicating with you, I shall be saying 'you'. How dare you undo my edits which are aways designed to improve style and add or correct facts. What do you actually know about the items you are 'editing'?? 82.39.166.176 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - was that intentional, or a mistake? If the latter, you could reach out to oversight and ask to have the diffs redacted. I haven't run a check on your account or anything, I figured it out in the old-fashioned way; if I can do that, other people probably can too. It's not strictly against policy, and I don't think that you've done anything improper, so please don't interpret this as a telling off, I'm really just letting you know that it can be spotted, and that some people see it as suspicious so, you know, you might not want to do it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)18:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User talk:Factcheckersoffical, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Escape Orbit(Talk)17:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novo Tape, thank you very much for the feedback on More Than Scientists, it's definitely helpful.
I removed the commentary in the last paragraph of the lead, leaving a short statement supported by the two quoted descriptions from the coverage.
Do you think the section on the general public's belief in climate science would be a good article on its own? It is an important part of the (on-going) history. As is, it focuses on the time period when More Than Scientists was launched, to provide context and background for that campaign. I could look at researching it further to update it to current time so it can stand on its own and then moving it out to a separate article? In the meantime I've shortened and tightened it up, and I could shorten it more if you think that would be better.
You're welcome. Also, don't worry—this is the appropriate venue for discussing my feedback. The article Public opinion on climate change already exists, but, if you're interested, I encourage you to edit it or discuss changes on the talk page. It's worth noting the page is designated as a contentious topic, so editing it may require particular care in terms of sourcing.
I notice that you've published your draft for review again. I'd still strongly recommend cutting down the section on Public Awareness since it's as long as the rest of the article. It's unlikely, though possible, that it will be published in the current form due to the undue weight concerns. I've added a see also link to public opinion on climate change under that section so that readers can gain more info if they'd like and the article doesn't need to include too much about public opinion. I can review the article again once you make those changes. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page17:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again – it’s really helpful to have someone providing feedback and edits. Ok, I greatly cut down the section on public opinion (I do think it's an important section tho since it describes why climate scientists have been interested in a vehicle like More Than Scientists for speaking out – which is unusual for scientists!) The page on public opinion talks around this aspect (the public’s opinion of the scientific consensus) so I’ll work on adding the add'l detail there.
As for resubmitting it for review, I assumed that was the next step after addressing your comments (altho apparently not sufficiently :) – sorry if that was jumping the gun. Please let me know what you think with this draft. Thanks! Keystone77 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how it can be hard to trim info, but I think the article is fairly well balanced now. Don't worry about jumping the gun. It took me a long time to learn when an article is ready and how to navigate Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines. I'm happy to help when you err.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! I just reverted some vandalism on Corey Perry and I think you mistakenly reverted my reversion. Granted there's a lot of vandalism going on at that article at the moment due to rumours floating around, but could you check again and see if the article is OK? Thanks! --2604:3D09:A17E:7300:1C2C:2EBA:27DC:D8E6 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Navo and Dear @Zoglophie: Hello, Very bad! but I think first declined reason was is better declined reason from me and from also navo's declined reason., navo, Thanks for reply. Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk)18:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
You've been trouted because you have reverted what appears to be this edit, but you've actually managed to restore something else, and that wasn't a great idea. But don't worry, you've managed to self revert it as everybody makes mistakes. Anyway, happy reverting! – 64andtim(talk)19:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About "Despite the multiple discussions, none were formally closed...", I thought I'd drop by and saying that formal closing (=boxing up) and summary statements are pretty rare, and they're not really necessary. The important thing is whether editors agree; the rest is for convenience (mostly, the convenience of later editors who just want to know the result and don't want to read the whole thing).
WhatamIdoing. Sorry for the (extremely) late response but I've been inactive the past month due to a personal matter. I think I wrote that line in reference to When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion from WP:CLD as well as another page specifically about policy/guideline changes (though for the life of me I can't remember which page that is or what it said). Either way, thanks for letting me know that closure isn't common.
Hello Novo Tape, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing,
🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 05:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
