If you message me here, i will reply here, as that is the logical place, keeping the conversation in one place; in replying, i will ping you, in case you haven't watched this page.
Clarification
If it happens that you have come here thinking you were going to talk with a user called Kahtar, you should know that i am also Kahtar; i use that account to make semi-automated edits, and don't watch the talk page. Feel free to write here, instead.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. F. Blakemore until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hello LindsayH! I noticed you responded to a question regarding Young King Henry and his status as a king a few months ago. A similar debate has started and I opened up a discussion section on the Talk Page. I just wanted to invite you to give your two cents should you feel it useful. Best to you and yours. Vyselink (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of administrators without tools
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, 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.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, 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%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, 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.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
In your recent edit to "Augustus" you wrote this edit summary:
AD more normally goes in front of the year; reverting. Though, why aren't we using CE/BCE in this article?
The only real talk page discussion I found was at "Talk:Augustus/Archive 2". The substantial reason given in that discussion is that "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" calls for consistency within an article and following the style used by the first editor to use era notation, unless there is a reason specific to the article to change. Mere preference for one style or the other is not a sufficient reason. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, tbh, it wasn't an entirely serious question, that is, not one i intended pursuing at the time: I was and am aware of the MOS discussion ~ i closed an RfC once about which era to use in an article ~ i suppose my point was that there probably is an article-specific reason to use the Common Era dating, in that Augustus really has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to drop by and answer me! Happy days, ~ LindsayHello19:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the MOS regards both styles as equally valid, I don't think "has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity" is a sufficient reason. If it were an article about a person who was a member of a group about a group that opposes AD notation, that would be an article-specific reason. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lindsay! I don’t think we’ve interacted much but I often notice your very constructive contributions to the project, so much so that when I saw you over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period mentioning you’d considered standing for RfA, I was genuinely astonished to learn you weren’t already an admin! Whatever happens with RfA reform, I hope we land on something that can persuade you to pursue it! Meanwhile, thanks for all you already do—like I say I often notice how valuable it is. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Your Expertise on Draft:Md Zillul Karim
Hi Lindsay
I hope you are well.
I am currently working on the draft article Draft:Md Zillul Karim and noticed your recent edits in repairing citation errors. Your expertise in this area is highly respected.
I would be grateful if you could take a moment to review the updated draft and provide any advice or suggestions you might have to further enhance it. Your insights would be invaluable in ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Your candidate statement matched something I've long suspected: there are people on this project who want to contribute, to give back, and are willing to step forward, with just a general goal of "I want to help." I'm really excited by the new election option; I think RfA is a vicious process, and actually discourages volunteers. Best wishes! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I think the huge take-up by candidates in the new process is itself a condemnation of RfA. All that untapped volunteerism, surging forth with the new process, is a very encouraging sign. There are 32 candidates; that's more than double the RfAs so far this year (14), and 13 more than in all of 2023, when there were 19. The last time there were more than 32 RfAs in one year was 7 years ago, in 2017, when there were 40. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship_by_yearMr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz I agree; and i certainly don't imagine that i'm the only person with that as a self-nom motivation. I'd urge you to make your points at talk:RfA (or wherever) when the community starts to review the new process. There have been some decrying it, and i think it's important that other voices are also heard. ~ LindsayHello18:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to encourage you to ignore the advice given by someone over at Wikipedia:Administrator Elections and by WP:CHEERS; who wants an encyclopedia devoid of happiness, of levity, of joy? I recall seeing your contributions on user talk pages and my day was invariably improved by the addition of the "Happy days." WP:IAR! (and all essays!)
Hello, JuxtaposedJacob; don't think i've met you before, how are you? I appreciate this message; as it goes, you can see by the signature at the end of this answer that i have changed it in response to the question/comment at the Elections; i quite understand the point about having a cheery valediction on a warning template. Nonetheless, i am going to make an effort to use a friendly sign-off when it is appropriate, as it is here. Thanks again ~ LindsayHello10:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite well, thank you, and hope that you doing similarly.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Oh, wow! Thank you so much. I was quite sorry when (i thought) it was gone, as it encapsulated a lot of my thinking; i shall go take a look now. Thanks again ~ LindsayHello22:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question from CutieZeezee (19:47, 13 January 2025)
It appears Wikipedia has assigned you to be bothered by me in HouseBlaster's stead. I'm working on a draft article titled 'Draft:Cheating in online chess', a subtopic of the already existing 'Cheating in chess'. Cheating in online chess in particular is both notable and complex, and many aspects of it would qualify for article level coverage under Wikipedia's requirements, let alone section level. However, I don't wanna make a 100KB article in draft space all by myself. Should I expect to need more information and citations than would be expected of other articles because I'm making one on a subtopic for it to get past reviewers and controversy, and to what extent if so? Do I only need to establish the breadth of the topic with some summaries, or do I have to flesh all of it out? I've read WP:Splitting and I know the regular requirements. Also, are there any means of finding sources you use other than the ones given by Wikipedia? Thanks, and よろしくお願いします。 Kaotao (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kaotao. I'm not sure just what you mean by being assigned, but i'm happy to answer questions any time, if i can. Here, my best advice is probably two-fold: First, don't look at writing Draft:Cheating in online chess as making a 100kb article yourself; look at what you're doing as merely making a start that will then be expanded as needed, by you or by other editors once it is in mainspace; that way you don't need to feel overwhelmed by the task, it's just a small bite to begin with. Second, there are some editors who dislike splitting off subtopics, but under legitimate operations it isn't likely to cause controversy (in mine opinion); have you read WP:CFORK, most especially the sections under WP:GOODFORK, such as WP:SPINOFF and WP:RELART? If not, i highly recommend you do so now, before going any further with the draft; they should give you some direction as to what is generally acceptable in creating a subtopic such as you are. To answer the specific questions, no, i wouldn't think yo should "need more information and citations" than any regular article; that it's a subtopic doesn't mean it requires even more substantiation than usual. To begin with, i would certainly not try to flesh everything out; i would not attempt to write full sections for each heading you currently have in the draft, but maybe start with "Overview" and "Detection", and perhaps give a couple of examples. More can be done once the article is accepted. If i can help you with any further advice or experience or whatever, please feel free to ask, and どういたしまして (Google translate, so i hope it's what i mean to say!) ~ LindsayHello11:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
