|
User talk:Vpab15
|
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, Happy New Year! Paine 07:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
- News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning
- Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper
- In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
- Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South
- Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night
- Book review: The Editors
- Humour: The Newspaper Editors
- Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug
Would you please elaborate on how you have assessed the consensus here. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, most editors opposed the move (9 vs 3 supporters) and per ngrams, most sources use uppercase. Vpab15 (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE and the threshold for capitalisation per MOS:CAPS is not most but a substantial majority? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but MOS:CAPS doesn't define what "a substantial majority" is, so it is up to editors to reach a consensus. In this case, the clear consensus is that uppercase should be used. Vpab15 (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- My recollection is that only two editor discuss what a substantial majority is quantitatively. One who opposes states that this should not be above 90% and that we should consider the most recent figure|s. The other considers the most recent figure|s and that it falls short of 70%. The burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that caps are necessary. Most comments do not engage in any meaningful way and many make spurious other stuff comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but MOS:CAPS doesn't define what "a substantial majority" is, so it is up to editors to reach a consensus. In this case, the clear consensus is that uppercase should be used. Vpab15 (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE and the threshold for capitalisation per MOS:CAPS is not most but a substantial majority? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Move review for AIM-174B
An editor has asked for a Move review of AIM-174B. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. MWFwiki (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC) -->
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?
Thank you!
Dear Vpab, Thank you for your reply to my 'talk' entry on the Public Schools (United Kingdom) page and for your work on suggesting/effecting a move/change to Public Schools (England). I can see you did quite a lot of groundwork in starting the process and inviting discussion - I'm relatively new to editing on WP, and I happily admit I'm utterly bamboozled by the technical aspects of the project. I'm still trying my best to get my head around the 'view history' tab and figuring out who made or when/why they made various edits. I'm still at the stage of randomly clicking different 'prev'/'curr' radio buttons to try to figure out who did (or undid!) what, when and why.
I'm rather prone to verbosity, and I happily take the time to state the details of any edits I've made and my rationale, in the 'reasons for edit' box. I find rather too often that other editors don't extend the same courtesy and I find it frustrating trying to figure out who did what and why. Perhaps it's a strategy by some folk to edit/revert things by stealth. It's no secret that a lot of people do not like change.
From what I see (and I get really bored and frustrated trying to figure these things out) someone put some degree of Kibosh on your suggested move (or rename) for this article. Unfortunately I have this feeling that the continuing use of the term 'public school' to mean an English private school is part & parcel of the elitist culture around such establishments.
But whatever the absurd-rationale for using one word to mean its polar opposite, the fact that only in England are private schools called public schools means that the title "Public Schools (United Kingdom)" is invalid.
I'll keep my eye on this and hopefully the work you've done can be brought to fruition.
thanks again,
F (I've no idea how to spell my user name in full) Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Flusapochterasumesch No worries, feel free to participate in the move discussion and express your opinion (supporting the move I assume).
- I know that it can feel overwhelming at times all the policies and guidelines and jargon. But with a few exceptions, editors will assume good faith and be civil in discussions, even when there is disagreement. I hope you find editing wikipedia interesting and decide to stay. Feel free to reach out with any question you may have.
- PS. Regarding private schools in the UK, there is the general article Private schools in the United Kingdom. The article Public school (United Kingdom) just covers a narrow subset of the general article. Vpab15 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 November 2024
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 December 2024
- News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5
- Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited
- Op-ed: On the backrooms by Tamzin
- In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial
- Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody
The Signpost: 24 December 2024
- From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- Recent research: "Wikipedia editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
- Traffic report: Was a long and dark December