User talk:Clovermoss
|
||||||||||
Newbie Central[edit]
Are you a newcomer to Wikipedia? Here are some resources that you may find helpful:
- There's this video that explains some of the basics of how Wikipedia works. It's aimed more towards readers than editors, but it can give a decent foundation of some things to be aware of before you start editing.
- The Wikipedia Adventure. This is a very basic (and somewhat eccentric) editing tutorial.
- Category:All stub articles which is organized alphabetically and by topic. All these articles could be expanded!
- This is a tutorial for what to know if you wanted to create an article.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch – advice on phrasing to avoid when editing
- This page is a glossary of different terms used on Wikipedia that can help you understand what people are talking about if you come across an unfamiliar acronym.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory - this is a list of wikiprojects. Some are way more active than others but it's a decent way to try and find groups of articles that match your interests. I'm particularly fond of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and the associated challenge for improving articles.
- This is the perennial sources list, which can be helpful if you're not sure if something is a reliable source. If it's not on this list and you have concerns, try this noticeboard.
- The Wikipedia Library – this cannot be used until you have 6 months tenure, no active blocks, and 500 edits. However, once you meet the criteria, it is a very useful resource. There is also the Wikipedia:Resource Exchange. I have subscriptions to the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and Niagara Falls Review, if you ever want me to verify something for you. I also have access to the James A. Gibson library at Brock University.
Selecting administrators[edit]
Regarding this comment: I'm not sure I understand your idea. Can you explain how it differs from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 8: Straight vote, or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 12: Abolish the discretionary zone and crat chats? These two proposals are in essence the same, just with a different location for discussion. Or from the admin elections trial, which has discussion on wiki, and then anonymous voting? isaacl (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see my idea as slightly different because it's more than a straight vote and I'm not calling for the abolishment of crat chats. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a concept in mind for how your procedure would work, procedurally? You mentioned having an anonymous vote, having discussion, and not deciding the outcome by counting votes. I feel there's something missing on how to combine these things together and am wondering what you are considering. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do have an idea for what this would look like. Someone would open up an RfA and be able to see questions/answers and a general comments section, with a link to where they can vote. This vote is anonymous and "secure poll-y". That way people can vote with their conscience. I think many would be opposers would leave it at that, but if they think they have concerns that are of wider community interest, they can post in the general comments. People who'd like to show why they think the candidate is great are free to share their thoughts as well. People would be free to respond to other people's comments (kind of like how I directly responded to neutrals and opposes in my RfA). In regards to crat chats, it'd be a straight vote until it isn't, which is how things already work in practice anyways. The crats would look at the discussion portion when trying to figure out if there's a consensus to promote or not. I genuinely think this would be the best of both worlds. I also think this concept is quite different from what was linked above in regards to current RfA reform and that my idea is relatively novel. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- So up until deciding the outcome, it sounds like the admin elections trial. I'm not clear, though, on how the bureaucrats would decide to override the results of the anonymous vote. With the current process, because the bureaucrats can match up expressed rationales with specific support/oppose statements, they can evaluate the strength of support or opposition of a given commenter and use this to judge the level of overall agreement. For this to continue to occur with your proposal, I think there would have to be a dual vote: one on-wiki, and one anonymous. And even then I think it would be hard to determine which vote should take precedence. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't think there would need to be a dual vote for this to work at all. I don't think bureaucrats need to match up expressed rationales with the votes, either. They only get involved when an RfA is in the discretionary zone and I think whatever would be in the comments section would be enough to figure out if there's a consensus to promote or not because either there's a lot of pushback to the rationales for why people are concerned or there isn't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- This idea is also different from admin elections because voting would be able to happen from the start and there wouldn't be a discussion only phase. Apart from that, I suppose it'd be the closest to what I've proposed here. I see that has been closed as successful so I'll suppose it'll be interesting to see how that goes. Obviously I didn't propose anything for this year's RfA reform but if we do something like this a few years from now again, I think it's possible I'll try my luck. I really do like my idea and it has the benefit of not having to separated from our standard RfA process/needing other people to run in an election with you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, in essence you're saying that the on-wiki comments would take precedence over the anonymous vote. I think that would provide incentive for commenters to continue with extended discussion on-wiki, much like its current form. For better or worse, numbers of commenters expressing a given opinion are used on English Wikipedia as a proxy for strength of argument. If the on-wiki discussion is going to be as long and confrontational as it is now, I'm not sure it's worthwhile preserving just to have a grey zone in the vote count. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I think most opposers would just leave their oppose as is and if they post in the comments, they should expect their rationale to be analyzed and rebutted. RfAs are rarely in the discretionary zone and when they are this discussion phase makes it relatively easy for people to tell if it's a widespread concern or not. People who are against straight votes usually point out that they see RFA's as a consensus building process and people who want straight votes don't want to be "badgered". That's why I think this is a good alternative to the current process where it's likely to make both sides happy. It's possible this proposal could have a variation where we get rid of the discretionary zone, I guess, but I don't see that side of it gaining much traction. I'm also not sure what you mean by
grey zone in the vote count
? As I said at WT:RFA, there would be a running tally of what the votes are, these votes would just be anonymous. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- If I understand your proposal correctly, the on-wiki comments are only used when the result of the vote is in a discretionary zone (which I called a grey zone to save characters). If there were no discretionary zone, then on-wiki comments wouldn't be used to directly determine the outcome at all. They would still have an indirect effect of influencing voters, but there's a reduced incentive to have extended back-and-forth replies, because disputants don't have to demonstrate the strength of their arguments through numbers.
- Regarding having a running tally of votes, note this isn't supported by SecurePoll. It runs counter to the principles of anonymous elections, as it leaks information that can influence voters. (Maybe the community would agree to wanting this influence to happen, of course.) isaacl (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I think most opposers would just leave their oppose as is and if they post in the comments, they should expect their rationale to be analyzed and rebutted. RfAs are rarely in the discretionary zone and when they are this discussion phase makes it relatively easy for people to tell if it's a widespread concern or not. People who are against straight votes usually point out that they see RFA's as a consensus building process and people who want straight votes don't want to be "badgered". That's why I think this is a good alternative to the current process where it's likely to make both sides happy. It's possible this proposal could have a variation where we get rid of the discretionary zone, I guess, but I don't see that side of it gaining much traction. I'm also not sure what you mean by
- Regarding having groups of candidates being voted upon on a single ballot, that's a concession to the workload required to administer SecurePoll. If SecurePoll is enhanced to allow it to be run on local Wikipedia servers, and administered by local admins, then it becomes more feasible to run polls more often. The other bottleneck is scrutineering. Assuming that is kept, how often polls can be run will depend on the capacity of scrutineers. isaacl (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that scrutineering needs to be this long drawn out process because it's not like the ArbCom elections where we're double checking that people aren't like socking or something. If we must have scrutineers, maybe they could be the bureaucrats? I envisioned something like SecurePoll because that's like the only thing we have built in for polling but I think something that's technically not that could work. We don't really have any alternatives right now but I don't think implementation issues should stop us from brainstorming and trying to make things better. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, I just didn't want to get bogged down in differences such as if an election had one candidate or ten, because that's a technical limitation.
- Regarding scrutineering: the key question is does the community want to check for votes that contravene established rules? Part of the trust voters place in anonymous elections is that they are administered fairly, and enforcing rules is part of that. No matter who the scrutineers are (bureaucrats, stewards, other volunteers), the amount of available effort is a bottleneck. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that scrutineering needs to be this long drawn out process because it's not like the ArbCom elections where we're double checking that people aren't like socking or something. If we must have scrutineers, maybe they could be the bureaucrats? I envisioned something like SecurePoll because that's like the only thing we have built in for polling but I think something that's technically not that could work. We don't really have any alternatives right now but I don't think implementation issues should stop us from brainstorming and trying to make things better. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, in essence you're saying that the on-wiki comments would take precedence over the anonymous vote. I think that would provide incentive for commenters to continue with extended discussion on-wiki, much like its current form. For better or worse, numbers of commenters expressing a given opinion are used on English Wikipedia as a proxy for strength of argument. If the on-wiki discussion is going to be as long and confrontational as it is now, I'm not sure it's worthwhile preserving just to have a grey zone in the vote count. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- So up until deciding the outcome, it sounds like the admin elections trial. I'm not clear, though, on how the bureaucrats would decide to override the results of the anonymous vote. With the current process, because the bureaucrats can match up expressed rationales with specific support/oppose statements, they can evaluate the strength of support or opposition of a given commenter and use this to judge the level of overall agreement. For this to continue to occur with your proposal, I think there would have to be a dual vote: one on-wiki, and one anonymous. And even then I think it would be hard to determine which vote should take precedence. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do have an idea for what this would look like. Someone would open up an RfA and be able to see questions/answers and a general comments section, with a link to where they can vote. This vote is anonymous and "secure poll-y". That way people can vote with their conscience. I think many would be opposers would leave it at that, but if they think they have concerns that are of wider community interest, they can post in the general comments. People who'd like to show why they think the candidate is great are free to share their thoughts as well. People would be free to respond to other people's comments (kind of like how I directly responded to neutrals and opposes in my RfA). In regards to crat chats, it'd be a straight vote until it isn't, which is how things already work in practice anyways. The crats would look at the discussion portion when trying to figure out if there's a consensus to promote or not. I genuinely think this would be the best of both worlds. I also think this concept is quite different from what was linked above in regards to current RfA reform and that my idea is relatively novel. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a concept in mind for how your procedure would work, procedurally? You mentioned having an anonymous vote, having discussion, and not deciding the outcome by counting votes. I feel there's something missing on how to combine these things together and am wondering what you are considering. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Question from Craigfiles123 (18:10, 30 April 2024)[edit]
I meant edit "their dander up over. --Craigfiles123 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Craigfiles123, it's unclear what you're trying to ask me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you tell if my draft was approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigfiles123 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Craigfiles123. If you're talking about Draft:US Savings Bonds: Do we have a leaky US Treasury?, you haven't submitted the draft for approval/rejection. I will say that if it was it would almost certainly be rejected though. Essays are not encyclopedia articles. If that's the sort of content you're interested in writing, I'd suggest looking at other websites like Medium. If you're interested in what the process for creating successful drafts looks like, I'd suggest reading this page in its entirety. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you tell if my draft was approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigfiles123 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Question from Maqsood Ahmed bhurgri on Wikipedia:About (14:34, 2 May 2024)[edit]
how to publish and how to get link to share this page --Maqsood Ahmed bhurgri (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Maqsood Ahmed bhurgri, it's a bit unclear what you're trying to ask me. Could you provide more information on what you're trying to do and maybe I can help? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
Technical news
- 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
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I just saw your essay for the first time. Here's a very belated, great job! Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I'm glad you liked it. If you're curious, I keep an updated version over at User:Clovermoss/Mobile editing. The archived talk page discussion is one hell of a read if you ever want to waste a few hours. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Great discussion. I see you bring up knitting, which reminds me that most of our textile arts articles are in poor shape. In any case, I'm currently working on some content about the influence of the pineapple design on textile arts from around 1700-1870 or thereabouts. Have you run into any pineapple design material during your foray into knitting culture? Ideally, I would want to cite a recognized authority on the subject, so if you know of any papers or books that discuss the early history of the pineapple design and how much it influenced the textile arts in Europe and the US, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The library that might be helpful - @Viriditas: I'm not a fashion historian or anything so unfortunately I am also not an expert on the history of knitting either. I learned how to knit when I was 10 after doing private bible lessons with another sister in my congregation. It actually ended up being quite helpful in regards to healthy coping mechanisms I needed as a child battling PTSD. I agree that our textile arts articles are in poor shape. There's always so much to do here – it's why I also happen to have a to do list which doesn't even adequately cover everything I want to do. There's also some stuff in my sandbox that I'm experimenting with in regards to improving content. I feel a bit out of my depth sometimes in regards to actually being a "good content person", I'm not sure if you can relate? I do stuff sometimes but I tend to feel that my best efforts end up being mediocre at best. Realistically, I can only do my best and hope to improve over time. To get back to textile arts though... I'm likely closer to Toronto than you are? I could try to see if the Textile Museum of Canada has anything in their library about pineapple design the next time I'm in the city. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your offer to help. From my reading so far, it turns out that the pineapple design is considered the most influential, popular, and widely used motif in modern textile arts in Britain and the US up until the late 19th century. It may not have reached such extreme levels in Canada. Although I'm still pursuing it, there's some evidence that it was widely used in the Southern and Northeastern United States, particularly South Carolina and Massachusetts, although those are only two examples. Ideally, I want to have a separate article discussing the use of the pineapple design in the textile arts, but I'm kind of spread thin at this point. Just keep your eyes open if you run into anything. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: The museum has two books that may be along the lines of what you're looking for. Apparently the main focus of both books is on pineapple fibers from the Philippines, colonialism, and that this had something to do with the popularity of the design motif you're looking for further information on? It seems like information about the design motif would be a bit sparse compared to the other stuff but I could definitely investigate further if it sounds close enough to what you're looking for. It'd have to be a few weeks from now because I'm super sick at the moment and I'll be busy with work when I'm well, but let me know if it's something you'd be interested in. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's a separate topic altogether, and I apologize for the confusion. I should have been a bit more clear. The confusion arises naturally due to the way search sites index their information. Most of the material is offline in books and papers. I think a better way forward is to share with you what I've already found. I will do that in the next few days. I'm sorry you are sick. Please take care, make some tea, and enjoy your favorite shows. Get well soon. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Just to make sure you're certain this isn't useful... I believe there actually is some of what you're looking for in these books. It's mostly about the fibers, with limited information about the design motif. The fibers seem to have some sort of connection with the ulitlization of the motif (which was then used outside the context of the fibers) if I was understanding what she said correctly. Making an appointment to see the materials in person might help with more definitive answers. I don't mind going on the off chance it is useful, you'd just have to be a bit patient.
- Thanks for the well wishes! I've mostly been distracting myself from the misery by editing, but I've also read a bit and watched a movie. Now it's time for me to try and get some much needed rest. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's a separate topic altogether, and I apologize for the confusion. I should have been a bit more clear. The confusion arises naturally due to the way search sites index their information. Most of the material is offline in books and papers. I think a better way forward is to share with you what I've already found. I will do that in the next few days. I'm sorry you are sick. Please take care, make some tea, and enjoy your favorite shows. Get well soon. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: The museum has two books that may be along the lines of what you're looking for. Apparently the main focus of both books is on pineapple fibers from the Philippines, colonialism, and that this had something to do with the popularity of the design motif you're looking for further information on? It seems like information about the design motif would be a bit sparse compared to the other stuff but I could definitely investigate further if it sounds close enough to what you're looking for. It'd have to be a few weeks from now because I'm super sick at the moment and I'll be busy with work when I'm well, but let me know if it's something you'd be interested in. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your offer to help. From my reading so far, it turns out that the pineapple design is considered the most influential, popular, and widely used motif in modern textile arts in Britain and the US up until the late 19th century. It may not have reached such extreme levels in Canada. Although I'm still pursuing it, there's some evidence that it was widely used in the Southern and Northeastern United States, particularly South Carolina and Massachusetts, although those are only two examples. Ideally, I want to have a separate article discussing the use of the pineapple design in the textile arts, but I'm kind of spread thin at this point. Just keep your eyes open if you run into anything. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Great discussion. I see you bring up knitting, which reminds me that most of our textile arts articles are in poor shape. In any case, I'm currently working on some content about the influence of the pineapple design on textile arts from around 1700-1870 or thereabouts. Have you run into any pineapple design material during your foray into knitting culture? Ideally, I would want to cite a recognized authority on the subject, so if you know of any papers or books that discuss the early history of the pineapple design and how much it influenced the textile arts in Europe and the US, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Protection req[edit]
Hi there. I just stumbled upon you while looking for an admin. Can you semi-protect the article Albert Wesker indefinitely, after it expired it returns again. Thank you. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 10:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Greenish Pickle!. I'm flattered you thought of me, but after looking at the page history, I'm not comfortable protecting the page quite yet. I'm very new as an admin and have only protected three pages so far (all of which were salted pages). I'd be more willing to consider this if I saw a flurry of vandalism after the page protection expired. Anyways, feel free to request a second opinion over at WP:RFPP. I keep meaning to watch and learn from that page more but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Also feel free to let me know if unconstructive edits keep happening in the meantime as I'm going to be online for a bit longer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cool, I didn't know you are a new admin here. Anyway, another IP pops out and removes content while others were adding unsourced stuff. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 10:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Greenish Pickle!: Hmm. I'm slightly more inclined now that it's happened more than once and it seems like they were waiting just for the protection to expire. I'm still a bit hesistant to dip my toes in but if I were to protect the page, I don't think I'd go with your original suggestion of doing it indefinitely. Chetsford's protection is the only one shown in the log after 2009 and going from one month to indefinite is quite a leap. A similar timeframe or one that's slightly escalated (say a few months) sounds more reasonable to me. Apologies if this is not quite what you're looking for but I did think it might help to at least explain my thought process here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- My guts tell me from the reddit post [1]. But, yeah you can protect it for months or a couple of weeks. Thank you! 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 11:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- This article protection could be also your learning ground. Some admin also protected Wario for 2 years. So, 1 month isn't an overkill :D 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 11:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Greenish Pickle!: Well admins can make different judgement calls and it seems best to err on the side of caution when I'm trying new things. It never hurts to be open to feedback and to understand why other people do the things that they do. Also I misread the log earlier... I should've pinged DanCherek instead of Chetsford. I'd like to apologize to the latter editor for the unnecessary ping, if they end up reading this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry If I just ended up approaching admins talk page because IP edits are quite often annoying. But, next time I'll try to request at WP:RFPP. Again, thank you and the previous editor who protected it. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 11:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Greenish Pickle!: As far as I'm aware, there's nothing wrong with approaching an active admin as an alternative to a RFPP request, as long as you're not going around to several admins after being told no (see WP:FORUMSHOP, which does not apply to this situation). In theory, an RFPP request has the potential benefit of more eyes, as it is a highly watched page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wavered a little even when deciding whether to apply the original protection. I agree that indefinite is not needed yet at this point. DanCherek (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry If I just ended up approaching admins talk page because IP edits are quite often annoying. But, next time I'll try to request at WP:RFPP. Again, thank you and the previous editor who protected it. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 11:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Greenish Pickle!: Well admins can make different judgement calls and it seems best to err on the side of caution when I'm trying new things. It never hurts to be open to feedback and to understand why other people do the things that they do. Also I misread the log earlier... I should've pinged DanCherek instead of Chetsford. I'd like to apologize to the latter editor for the unnecessary ping, if they end up reading this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Greenish Pickle!: Hmm. I'm slightly more inclined now that it's happened more than once and it seems like they were waiting just for the protection to expire. I'm still a bit hesistant to dip my toes in but if I were to protect the page, I don't think I'd go with your original suggestion of doing it indefinitely. Chetsford's protection is the only one shown in the log after 2009 and going from one month to indefinite is quite a leap. A similar timeframe or one that's slightly escalated (say a few months) sounds more reasonable to me. Apologies if this is not quite what you're looking for but I did think it might help to at least explain my thought process here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cool, I didn't know you are a new admin here. Anyway, another IP pops out and removes content while others were adding unsourced stuff. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 10:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Costoia[edit]
Hi!
I write you about your edition in Costoia. The article was about a hamlet (gl:Costoia, Vilanova, Lalín); but if not an article, instead of a redirection it should be a desambiguation page, for there are some other places with that name, as you can see in gl:Costoia. Could you do it, please?
Thanks a lot! --Estevoaei (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Estevoaei. I redirected the page because the English Wikipedia has specific requirements in regards to the notability of places. The Costoia hamlet seems like it would fall under
Populated places without legal recognition
as described in WP:GEOLAND, which are not presumed to be notable. If you can find coverage in reliable sources that meets WP:GNG, it would make sense to have this as a standalone article (but this article has been tagged for being completely unsourced since 2009 and the Spanish Wikipedia version also doesn't contain sources). Other wikipedias have different standards for notability, but sources don't need to be English, which is why I'm pointing this out. A disambiguation page could potentially be a valid alternative to a redirect if this is an "ambigious term" that refers to multiple places. I don't speak Spanish so it wouldn't be easy for me to translate the page you linked to. You could try to do it yourself if you wish. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
A Wikilove message for you![edit]
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
As requested, — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: I wasn't really counting troutings as being templated... I was thinking more along the lines of the common user warnings. There is some precedent for being trouted here, when I accidently wrote the wrong shortcut. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see. TBH, I don't think I could really find behaviour to template you for. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aww, so sweet. 💜 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see. TBH, I don't think I could really find behaviour to template you for. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Question[edit]
Hello, Clovermoss,
First of all, thank you for granting me the NPP permission. I am glad to be able to help out with the May backlog drive.
I have a question though. Do AFC reviews count for points? Asking as in the New Pages page, there is an AFC list I can switch to. Thanks! If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- @TheTechie: AfC is a seperate process entirely even if it's also visible in the new pages queue. Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024 explains what is counted as part of the drive. Remember to focus on quality over quantity, especially since you're new to this. There's an extensive guide over at WP:NPP and you can always skip pages you're unsure of/or ask me what I think. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)