This is an archive of past discussions with User:Goodnightmush. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, 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.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. 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 here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Also these two users: Rusoscal and Pumconi who vandalized the page Capuchino[3] of the Spanish Wikipedia are obvious sockpuppets of Sapsby/Xiaomichel (they wrote practically the exact same things that Sapsby wrote here on the English Wikipedia; as you can clearly see by looking at their only contributions:[4][5] ). And he also vandalized the page Café expreso[6] through many IPs; eliminating its Italian origin and trying to transform it into something French... [7]82.55.77.241 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
To create a Wikipedia page on wars involving Tunisia, one can structure it similarly to the provided well built pages such as Egypt or the Kingdom of Morocco's military history.
The page shall be divided into sections based on historical periods, such as the Hafsid dynasty, Ottoman Tunisia, the Beylik of Tunis, and modern Tunisia. Each section should list significant conflicts, their combatants, outcomes, and relevant treaties or events.
I litteraly don't understand why you did not even read my version.
Please tell exactly what the current one is accurate.
Hi, I protected List of wars involving Tunisia because the page has been edited by one or more users using multiple accounts to edit the page in violation of Wikipedia policy. I apologize if you are unconnected to those accounts and have been trying to make constructive edits. If so, you are still welcome to discuss them and request that they be made on the article's talk page. You could also make an account which will, after make enough constructive contributions elsewhere, be allowed to edit the page. GoodnightmushTalk17:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and for your vigilance in maintaining Wikipedia's standards. I understand the need to protect the integrity of the page, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss any potential edits on the article's talk page. I'll certainly consider creating an account to contribute more effectively. In the meantime, I'll share any suggestions I have through the talk page to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the content. Thanks again for your understanding and for your work on Wikipedia.
Still I worked a lot on the page I have edited. Because the one you restore is very incomplete and SHALL be improved.
Hi, could you please change the protection of the cappuccino page and add it to the other two? See recent page histories for information. Thank you very much in advance.
Also, I'll just quickly suggest that, although it's totally fine to edit your own talk page messages for a short while after you post them, if you are making changes later (e.g., the next day like here), you are encouraged to add them as separate comments or otherwise make clear that they are later changes (per WP:TALK#REVISE). And you are strongly discouraged from making edits if anyone has replied to you (not that that happened here, but just mentioning it). GoodnightmushTalk14:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
It's a secondary source that yes, refers to rotten tomatoes, but discusses the reception of audiences being radically different than the critics. That's the point of the source, and that's why it matters in this context and is allowable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: Thanks for reaching out, rather than just reverting. My view is that since the cited MSN article is just pointing to RT as its evidence for the reception of audiences having a different view than critics (and we don't use RT to assess audience reception), we can't rely on it. If MSN had any other evidence for a positive audience reception, I'd agree with you. But it seems like they just have RT and a press release from the producer of the movie claiming a positive audience reception, which is definitely not a reliable source. If there's a real, rigorous poll showing a positive audience reception (CinemaScore or something like that), I'd be persuaded. GoodnightmushTalk15:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
