Daniel Quinlan

Hey. The Evyatar protection request was already archived, but I got your note via ping. So, my understanding and modus operandi is that admins don't have discretion about WP:PIA WP:ECR for non-preemptive requests (which I approach as at least one recent disruptive or otherwise contested edit by a non-WP:XC user) of primary articles. This in contradistinction to related pages, where I do feel like we have the discretion to add an expiration (recent example), or downgrade, or lift outright, anything else. Might be worth seeking clarification about this at WP:ARCA. Also ping @Nableezy: the filer of this request and a user who is more familiar with this area of arbitration policy than most admins. Thanks and best wishes, El_C 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to leave that particular article indefinitely ECP, that's fine with me. Someone can always make a request on WP:RFPU.

Regarding WP:ECR, it says the restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required. Given that it says both preferably and though this is not required, it seems quite intentionally discretionary and note that's for a page that mostly or entirely relates to the topic area.

Also, the next item intentionally includes page protection (even mentioning pending changes) which seems to indicate page protection is a broader option and not limited to indefinite ECP: On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

Finally, if you look at the enforcement logs for WP:CT/A-I, semi-protection and non-indefinite terms are definitely used sometimes in circumstances when the administrator deems it appropriate. I suspect that's due to articles being less related, less disrupted, or both. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Pinging you because you're the only person who responded to my question about this case on Discord (which I asked before the request was handled). Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having just reviewed the article it looks a lot more ARBPIA primary topic than I originally assumed after reviewing the lead earlier. In general, if something isn't completely primary I go with something around 6 months to a year in hopes that the conflict will cool and the article won't see conflict related editing. In this situation, though, my initial impressions of the article were wrong. I saw the request come through while I was taking a break at work and only took a peek at the lead which led to me giving you bad advice. Sorry about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I was about to go with a year of ECP before I saw it had been handled. It's definitely in the topic area, but it's been almost free of disruption the last few years. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Daniel Quinlan, sure, protection could be supplanted with blocks and other actions according to 'preference,' but like WP:GS/RUSUKR and WP:GS/AA sanction regimes, the default of WP:ECR is indef WP:ECP. A default which (all) the respective logs reflect, though of course there are outliers. To touch on what SFR says, this page about the Israeli outpost is a primary article par excellence. Which unlike related content, is guaranteed to always remains so. It contains material that will remain contested and contentious for the foreseeable. El_C 03:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please semi-protect his page instead of fully protecting it. He is now the UFC Featherweight champion and those details cannot be changed. Please educate me on who made the choice to fully protect his page. Marty2Hotty (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article is fully protected because people were edit warring over his nationality. Right now, people are edit warring over his nationality on related articles such as List of UFC champions. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:DRN#Ilia_Topuria. Hopefully, we can lower the page protection level soon. The article has been updated now. If you would like to make any edit requests on the talk page, please make sure you include a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. That includes providing a source if necessary. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bobcomŵ appears to be another sock of the vandals at Boeing and City of London School.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Probably. If they resume, please report them to WP:AIV. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article probably should have been protected, but I'm not sure BLP (or even BRDP) applies to someone dead for over 50 years. Was I missing something in the edits? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're totally right, I must have autopiloted the pulldown menu in Twinkle. I'll fix the log, etc. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Calling it full autopilot. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry. You're not the only admin who's done this. A while back someone else protected Marlon Brando under BLP (I know his performances often make him seem immortal, but he has been dead for 15 years). Today I saw that in the past someone had cited BLP violations on a past protection of an article about a fictional character.   Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Elim Garak a page you recently protected appears to have someone WP:PGAMEing and edit-warring should you please take a look?—blindlynx 23:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked. In the future, when you encounter this type of blatant disruption, could you please report it to the appropriate noticeboard such as WP:ANEW, WP:AIV, or WP:ANI? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, will do! I wasn't sure what the appropriate board was but i guess anyone will do?—blindlynx 00:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I probably would have used WP:ANEW for this one. If you look at the top of any of those pages, there's an index of noticeboards. For issues with disruptive users, look under the User conduct section. If there are multiple issues or it's especially urgent, WP:ANI is usually a reasonable choice. For spam and vandalism, use WP:AIV. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goodies (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel Quinlan :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Admin sir, Please lock the Graharipu article. 2409:4085:8C87:3CA4:0:0:81C9:5B00 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please request page protection on WP:RPPI. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• 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 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• 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.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

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:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, could you take a look at Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick and perhaps re-introduce protections (if necessary)? It seems like the paid editors are back on there to reintroduce the same edits made by the sockmaster "Anne Barrington". I'm not entirely sure if they are *exactly* the same people from the SPI, as it is also possible that the individual themselves has engaged and paid other individuals that may or may not be "Anne Barrington". I've nevertheless made a report. Thank you. John Yunshire (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, there. While I did open up a discussion about the recent changes at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride#Changes to the plot and lead a few days ago, I apologize if I have ever bitten the newcomers; it was never my intention to hurt or upset anyone. Also, keep up the good work, as usual. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sjones23: Thanks. I did see that discussion which seems to have been somewhat productive and suggests that the new editor has something positive to contribute. I also want to emphasize that the guideline is not just about being welcoming, it's about educating newcomers through constructive feedback in edit summaries and talk pages. When newcomers' edits are reverted in a bitey way, instead of it being a learning experience, it often leads to edit wars. If you feel the need to apologize, perhaps offering one to the editor on the article talk page would be appreciated. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Also, as an addendum, the IP's edits to the plot summary turned out to be unneeded after all. Otherwise, thanks for your understanding. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Back in January, you blocked 2603:8000:2A00:3EE6:0:0:0:0/64. The same editor is back, engaging in the same pattern of edit warring and adding unsourced content. Given their history and some rather nasty personal attacks against me in the past, I'm inclined to request an extended vacation approaching three months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Pbritti: Hi. That was a while ago and I don't remember them off the top of my head. Could you please report them to WP:ANEW? I'll try to take a look at the report later. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm nodding off now, so ANEW will have to wait a few hours. If you have a chance to take a peek before I get around to it, let me know. Otherwise, thanks for the heads up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Í don’t want to edit the page or anything, í just wanted to ask why the Chola Empire is a contentious topic. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

All edits related to related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan fall under WP:CT/IPA. The contentious topics article has more information and general sanctions is a good overview of all topics covered by sanctions (which includes contentious topics). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you already got a free trial of what dealing with that editor is like[1], also just saw this happened[2], apologies to everyone for all that (even though I'm not the main culprit). Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you protect this page please? Pornography is being spammed... Ecrusized (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ecrusized: It looks like Acroterion already added a brief protection. If you ever need to request page protection, the fastest way is to submit your request at WP:RPPI. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sorry. I had to get this to somebodies attention fast because extreme hate speech was being spammed in edit summaries. Ecrusized (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. It looks like the edit summaries have all been handled too, which is good. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for stepping in and blocking an apparent vandal of Deaths in 2024 DarkStarHarry (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I’d let you know this editor has gone back to their old ways at the topic they were blocked for edit warring as soon as the block expired. Don’t know if you want to take another look? Equine-man (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

After reviewing things briefly, the edits from 82.211.205.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that FlyJet777 is reverting look a little more like vandalism (i.e., removing candidates) than the edits in the previous content dispute. They could certainly be cautioned about their edit summaries being inadequate. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Equine-man I am just re-adding names of candidates that were previously removed by the IP address @Daniel Quinlan mentioned. So what wrong am I doing here? That was clearly vandalism and I reverted it. Precisely the reason I wrote "Rv vandalism" in the edit summaries. FlyJet777 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FlyJet777: You don't need to ping people on their own talk page.

Only 37% of your edits have an edit summary which is rather low and when you do include an edit summary, it's often the default summary or minimal. If you're reverting vandalism such as this edit, please realize it's not going to be obvious vandalism to anyone unfamiliar with this election. Reversion of subtle vandalism is better explained with more than just "Rv vandalism". And if it truly is vandalism, you should also be warning the editor on their talk page (eventually reporting them to WP:AIV), not just reverting the change.

It also seems like you are using the minor edit flag on some edits that should not be marked as minor: A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits.. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning for protecting the page under the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic, as it prevents new users like myself from making edits to the article. Also, the protection duration is indefinite, was wondering if you could also provide reasoning for that. Thanks UnknownHye (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@UnknownHye: WP:GS/AA encourages administrators to use extended confirmed protection. I used an indefinite duration because the article had a significant history of reverted edits. After reviewing the article history, I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection. We may need to restore ECP if the article experiences significant issues at the new protection level. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like to request a reduction in the level of protection you implemented at The Gazette (band). It definitely needs some protection, but the problem edits all came from IPs and one brand new editor. I suggest semi-protection cause it'd be nice to tidy it up a bit, like adding a secondary source for the death instead of just a primary one, and clean up stuff like the WP:SELFREDs and large amount of all caps. The article is getting a lot of views now, and I feel that last one in particular makes Wiki look bad. lol Xfansd (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Xfansd: I would like to lower the protection level, but it doesn't seem like sufficient headway has been made on the talk page towards resolving the content dispute that resulted in edit warring or at least explaining the relevant WP:MOS or policies to everyone clamoring for the change. If the band has indeed said something to the effect of the deceased band member being "eternal" then perhaps a consensus can be reached by mentioning it in the text of the article while keeping the infobox accurate. (If no such statement has been made then it's more of an exercise in explaining our policies and guidelines, linking the appropriate pages and sections, etc. And we could consider semi-protection based on unsourced changes.)

Please feel free to ask me again if more headway is made. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, was about to message you to actually prolong the protection. Some fans already announced on Twitter that they would immediately change it again once the protection is over. They also don't seem like people one can talk reasonably to, insulting me as a POS, among other things: https://twitter.com/RUKICORE/status/1780610614164947395/photo/1 - so I'm afraid once the protection is gone, the page will simply just be vandalized again. Seelentau (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is unfortunate, sorry. Regardless, please try to assume good faith for people commenting on the talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the pointer to the WP:ELEVAR essay here. I definitely share some of those misgivings, which was why I labelled my replacement suggestions as only "near-synonyms". Nice work finding better ways to the same end!

Just for the record, the essay doesn't really touch on parts of speech other than nouns - or even on common nouns, after the very first illustration of the idea in the lede. Maybe it ought to be broadened, though? Or maybe not; the elegant variation article has somewhat similarly narrow scope, and directly addresses that point as well, so maybe other sorts of variation would not fit well under this umbrella?

- 2A02:560:59A1:EF00:51BD:7C45:D59E:A2DE (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Overdoing variation can be a problem with verbs too. It's also important to avoid inadvertently changing the meaning away from what sources state. My general approach is to look for opportunities to consolidate repeated information as suggested in WP:ELEVAR and to take cues from reliable sources. Those two approaches usually provide enough variation to alleviate the worst cases of overly repetitive text. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The last edits to the Mexica are inaccurate. Not only are the dates wrong but the Mexica people are an existent ethnic group in Mexico today. The edit makes it seem like they no longer exist, which isn’t true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF01:6AAD:78CA:676A:E1F7:A756 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, colleague. How can I edit {{Wikipedia stats|tly|Talysh}} from Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias? With respect. Smpad (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's more information at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias § Notes. I don't really know any more than what it says, but I hope that helps answer your question. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing my RPP request. Saw your recent comment suggesting to warn the user, but since this IP is rapidly changing (sometimes multiple times per day), it is doubtful they are seeing them. Nevertheless, they've been warned here, here, and now here in addition to your warning. I will continue to carry it out until we reach the final level. The IP range appears to be a wireless mobile carrier, however, so page protection might be preferred over blocking the IP range should we reach that stage. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GoneIn60: I think that's enough warnings. It may help to discuss the disagreement on the article talk page where they seem to have engaged previously. An inline comment in the article is sometimes helpful as well. If they continue, I would recommend reporting 2600:1009:b100::/40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. In cases where a disruption is from a single editor, page protection is generally not the first step as discussed in WP:PREEMPTIVE. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

okay is good I understand I talked with fulfulde Wikipedia community okay added me to English wikipedia editors group thank you so much here my WhatsApp number (Redacted) Adamu ab (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In general, if you can't get help on the Fulfulde Wikipedia, then the Meta-Wiki is the best place to ask questions. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That page was "permanently" semiprotected quite some years ago. It seems that someone decided to unprotect it, and the persistent troll is still at it. You should reimpose semi status not for a couple of months but for much, much longer. Like maybe another 10 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This looks like the first occurrence of this recurring theme about the square, nearly 18 YEARS ago.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Baseball Bugs: When the article was unprotected, it did go six months without being disrupted again so it seemed appropriate to try a non-indefinite duration. If the same disruption resumes when protection expires, feel free to let me know and I'll strongly consider a longer duration (or make a request on WP:RFPP with these details). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've also asked the guy who unprotected it a couple of years ago, to look into it. Evidently the troll wasn't checking it on a daily basis, but once he found out, he's been activated, so to speak. Like "releasing the kraken." I think there were some related articles that also required protection, but I don't recall just now what they were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, we can't predict whether a disruptive editor will return and never unprotecting any indefinitely protected article would be a worse option. Pioneer Courthouse Square and Pioneer Square, Seattle seem like the primary targets. It's probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pioneercourthouse who has a history of vandalizing the articles when they're semi-protected so ECP would be my inclination if they return. Anyhow, it's no big deal to reprotect them for a longer duration, possibly indefinitely, if and when it's needed. Regards. @HJ Mitchell: Pinging you as a courtesy. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we can predict it, in this case. It was needed 18 years ago, and it still is. Keep in mind that the mere fact we have to talk about this is feeding that troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although a word may have a rare spelling that doesn't mean it can't be in the article. That goes for the definition. Regarding the lead (lede) information presented there is not required to only be there. Delectable1 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Delectable1. Alternative spellings are sometimes placed in the lead section, but the alternative spelling doesn't seem common enough to justify mentioning it in this article and the MOS encourages trying to avoid clutter in the lead section. You could start a discussion on the talk page if you think "cleptocracy" needs to be mentioned. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking people probably don't realize that you are an admin. Anyway, not necessarily wanting to get into a discussion with you but maybe a little back-and-forth would be fine. Assuming that you and I thoroughly know the Wikipedia guidelines or almost at least, I would say you and I could agree on adding some of the content (even without the rare spelling).Delectable1 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm just an editor like anyone else on that article, not performing administrative actions. I think the definition in the lead section is probably sufficient, but the article would likely benefit from further discussion on the origination and rising usage of the term, provided we can find solid sources to support a new section of the article. And that might be a good place to further discuss the definition if there's more to be said than what's in the lead. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose I'll look at adding that.Delectable1 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Daniel Quinlan, you protected 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu following my request at Rfpp for persistent sockpuppetry by WP:SPI/Srimonbanik2007. The master who has targeted the winning party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam with different accounts for months is now using an IP range which was previously reported at the SPI, to restore the edits of their socks. The master is socking with IP and accounts almost everyday. Could you protect Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam for some months till the election trends calm down. Thanks. - SUN EYE 1 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sun Eye. Please submit a request at RfPP. I'll try to take a look later if it hasn't already been handled. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I reported The Looney Tunes Show for page protection a while ago, which you granted. Unfortunately the slow "edit war" continues even after protection. I am starting to suspect there are some sockpuppets as well, but I not enough to go to SPI. I am not sure if this goes to the ANEW, AN, ANI, or DRN? Any thoughts? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it's an edit war, you could report it to ANEW, but I would start by identifying the parties involved and issuing them an edit warring warning. If one or more people continue edit warring after being warned, then proceed to ANEW following the guidance for reporting issues there. You could also try to start a discussion on the talk page to air out the disagreements involved and see if consensus is possible. Finally, you could request full page protection on WP:RFPP, but I would recommend including specific examples to illustrate repeated edits, etc. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Daniel Quinlan I filed a sockpuppet investigation, for a user that you banned last week. Person uses other ip ranges and continue its edits. I would be happy if you review it. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2003:EA:4F00:0:0:0:0:0 Göycen (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

He's back. JBL (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've warned the editor. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another IP from Romania has taken up the refspamming. I don't know if any action needs to be taken, but it seemed worth making a note of. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@XOR'easter: The spamming was too long ago for a block to make sense, but thanks for letting me know. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

And they're back to Markov chain [4]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This particular IP is continuing, and is spreading out to new targets: [5]. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm part of part of couple of months long going dispute and preparation for RfC at Jinn, (starting around here). At the suggestion of Bookku (here), I was wondering if you could take a look at this post by VenusFeuerFalle and see if you find it in breach of WP:DR spirit of WP:AGF as Bookku (our informal dispute facilitator) and myself do. (I'm having trouble finding an admin to do this and found your name on WP:LA, so I hope this is not too far out of your comfort zone.)

Example:

I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

Many thanks if you can help. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like a complex situation. I recommend posting a report on WP:ANI following the instructions on that page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

it is good that the article is protected now, but before it was protected the ethnic background of mr pezeshkian was edited and now part of it is removed. please revert it to the previous version inwhich it states both of his paternal ethnic background. please check the last versions of the article historic before it was protected. i hope you revert it and add the correct information again which was sourced well. thanks--Hedayts (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hedayts: If there is a specific change you would like to request, you can make an edit request on the article talk page. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm writing regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports.

That page is the only place that IPs are supposed to report false positive edit filter hits. I understand that there has been disruption recently, but we generally don't protect the page due to disruption—indeed, disruption occurs on the page almost every day. And, when we do block, it's usually for extremely short periods of time (such as mere hours), and only when absolutely necessary. I understand that this particular master enjoys hitting the page repeatedly, but would you please lift the protection (or at least shorten the length)?

Thank you!

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Red-tailed hawk. I literally just posted about this on WP:EFN because I was concerned 1 day might have been too long. I'll go ahead and lower the duration. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Red-tailed hawk: I lowered it to 3 hours. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first source cited in the article Ali Ahmed (soccer) states:

"Ali and his four siblings grew up in the Toronto district of Lawrence Heights — “The Jungle,” the locals call it, a neighbourhood fraught with gun violence and drive-bys — after their parents, mom Muna and dad Afendi, emigrated from Ethiopia’s Oromo region in the late 1980s."

The edit saying his parents are from the Oromo region of Ethiopia should be allowed. JavaNiceDay (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JavaNiceDay: If there is a specific change you would like to request, you can make an edit request on the article talk page. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can I ask you (or any tps) to take a look at the recent changes to the above? I came across this as someone was editing elsewhere to try and include this person. It was a refirect to a London music publisher. This looks like a hijack to me? Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like someone beat me to it. Both accounts are globally locked. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank Daniel! Knitsey (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Daniel, is there a chance the Economy of England could be unprotected or have a protection decrease? I'd love to edit it and improve it, and have some content to add with sources, but sadly nobody can. 2A0A:EF40:EDE:B201:4824:E15F:48BC:7448 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the current page protection level is appropriate and necessary due to severe sockpuppetry issues on the article. You can always make an edit request on the talk page to request a specific change. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hate sockpuppetry! 2A0A:EF40:EDE:B201:4824:E15F:48BC:7448 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

A private edit filter had prevented me from responding to the other Daniel's comment. Can you please allow it?197.0.60.67 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

False positives should be reported at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The editor who created the POV fork article on the Souliotes, also created that unsourced article. I am not sure if it should go through the AfD process or be speedy deleted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ktrimi991. Someone redirected it and I deleted the copyright violations. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, much appreciated. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am requesting that you should email me because I have some sensitive regex/condition suggestions to add to private filter 1290 (hist · log) (in which it's better not to discuss this type of sensitive material here, and because you don't have email enabled), thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 01:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I updated my preferences, go ahead. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am writing to bring to your attention a serious issue with the Wikipedia article Intermedia (company). My Father received an email claiming to be from intermedia and offered my father to turn his book into film. They claim that they produced The Aviator and The Terminator among others-- which is an obvious blatant lie. The email contains a link to Intermedia wikipage and upon checking, it appears that the user Apon4971 has made edits to the article, including adding a website link that is being used to scam people. The link makes it seem as though the site is affiliated with a legitimate company, which it is not. The REAL intermedia is already defunct for more than 20yrs

Details of the Issue:

Article: Intermedia (company)

User: Apon4971

Scam Website Inserted [https://internationalmediaag.com/]

Problematic Edit: Insertion of a website link purported to be associated with Intermedia but used for scamming. Upon researching they scammed authors by offering them to turn their book into film and asking authors for money to kickstart the process.

Rationale for Reporting: The inclusion of this website link misleads readers into believing it is an official and legitimate resource, potentially causing harm to individuals who may fall victim to the scam. This action violates Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and reliability of sources, and it undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia.

Request for Action:

Review the Edits: Please review the recent changes made by Apon4971 to verify the insertion of the fraudulent website link.

Remove the Scam Link: If confirmed, kindly remove the misleading website link from the article.

Investigate the User: Consider investigating the editing patterns of Apon4971 for any further malicious activity and take appropriate action if necessary and possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your efforts in maintaining the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia.

Best regards,

[Writer22222222] Writer222222 (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Writer222222: Done. If you see this sort of thing again in the future, I'd suggest reporting it to WP:ANI so it's seen by more administrators. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Do you think you could protect the Harrison Butker page again, as you did two months ago? It is being repeatedly POV edited, bordering on vandalism. Multiple anonymous or very new editors are disruptively editing the page and have had to be corrected over and over. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TanRabbitry: For protection and reprotection requests, could you please ask on WP:RFPP? Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did that as well, but it appeared that it takes a while. I thought I would ask you as well, since you protected it last time. If you're only supposed to request it on that page, I'll make sure do so in the future. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TanRabbitry: It just tends to work better that way because administrators have varying amounts of time to handle requests. In this particular case, I did happen to take a look at the article earlier, but I was concerned it looked like a possible content dispute and I didn't have a lot of extra time earlier to investigate further. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've had enough of these anonymous users adding Chinese cities to the 2028 Winter Youth Olympics page because they WON'T GIVE UP! This page needs to be protected for as long as it's needed. Josh0108 (alt) (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is Dustborn covered by WP:CT/GG? Trade (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not especially familiar with the game, but the answer is probably yes. If the article is being significantly disrupted, you can request page protection under WP:CT/GG at WP:RFPP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mind if i add Silent Hill 2 (2024 video game) to the list as well? Trade (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Daniel Quinlan. This is regarding extended-confirmed protection set by you on 2024 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election due to WP:CT/IPA. Since the candidate lists on the article is incomplete, and election issues and party campaigns sections are completely empty, more editors might be needed to update the article. Requesting you to reduce the protection level to Semi-protection. Dhruv edits (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dhruv edits: I'll reduce the protection level to semi-protection. If significant disruption resumes, please make a request to restore ECP at WP:RFPP. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Quinlan Thank you! Dhruv edits (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Daniel Quinlan. This semi-protection has expired in 2 days. The ECP earlier was indefinite, and I think the Semi-protection now should also be indefinite since it is a contentious topic. Dhruv edits (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dhruv edits: Fixed, thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Daniel Quinlan. The article List of Telugu Films of 2024 was semi-protected indefinitely due to edit warring like behaviour from IPs. Considering the previous years articles of List of Telugu Films, it can be observed that IPs have made significant contributions. So if possible, requesting unprotection or reduction in semi-protection level period to 1 January 2025, giving chance to new potential editors. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thewikizoomer: Thanks for raising this, I don't think it's a good idea to change the duration. Based on the edit history before protection and the issues with similar articles, I believe indefinite protection is appropriate. The 2023 article also had a large number of reverted edits well into 2024. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thank you for looking into this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good morning,

You were on the list of recently active admins, and I need someone urgently to deal with this ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Lewisguile-20240916215000-Lewisguile-20240916182100

There are three pages that have been vandalised, including removal of sourced information and the insertion of contentious information, with edit warring. The worst affected is Afro-Jamaicans.

The user is ignoring polite requests not to edit war and to engage in WP:BRD or other consensus-building processes, yet keeps reverting any editors who try to get involved. Lewisguile (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure this was that urgent, but I dealt with the report. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate your haste and helpfulness with this.

Since this morning, I have discovered that the same user (possibly using multiple IPs) has been making similar edits to a whole range of Caribbean-related articles, nearly always inserting Coromantee Creoles into them, and blanking out/removing huge chunks of text in several cases. The user appears to be a WP:SPA with a particular agenda.

The affected pages I've found so far (there are probably others under other IPs) include: Afro-Caribbeans, Afro-Jamaicans, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Coromantee, Mixed-race Caymanians, Tacky's Rebellion, Turks and Caicos Creole, and Turks & Caicos. Since this user only has a 24-hour block and may be using alternate IPs anyway, this may be an issue that needs to be looked at again once they return.

I've done my best to rollback what I can and have noted the relevant talk pages. I'll add the same note to the ANI for transparency. Lewisguile (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although I have no idea what you did there, I still thanked you. Thanks for cleaning it up. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind to take a look at my talk page and check whether the comment in question constitutes a personal attack? Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ckfasdf: It looks like it's already been appropriately reverted. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see you admin-locked Greg Smith (Oregon politician) for a week. That's no ordinary edit war; there has been bad blood between the paper and the politician for five years, for which the paper won a First Amendment award. You should check out the article about Smith's attempt to buy the paper when you get a chance.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the additional information. Fully locking the article to allow time for discussion still seems appropriate to me. There hasn't been any discussion on the article's talk page about the content dispute at this point. I think bringing in dispute resolution help may also be necessary, but the talk page is the place to start. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I fell asleep last night and was unable to make a reply. But yes I am confirming that List of programs broadcast by DWPM/TeleRadyo Serbisyo is one of the IP sock's common targets. Will resubmit another RFP for that. Borgenland (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just replying here for the record, thanks for your report on RFPP! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was just browsing around RM and happened to notice that the one currently open at New York City Police Department is move-protected, yet the article has no semi-protection. I noticed that you were the protecting admin at the original request here which only mentioned 2-day semi-protection, so I wasn't sure if perhaps the move protection was added in error? estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi estar8806. Most edit semi-protections preserve any prior move protection settings and that's also the sensible default for Twinkle. If you look at the page protection history for the article, you'll see it's been consistently move protected for a long time due to page move vandalism. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will ask here as it maybe strays off-topic for the Bot policy talk:

It does sound like, reading your comments, that you felt a bad experience going through BRFA? If I'm right in thinking you thought your BRFA to be unpleasant: is it more the source code requirement that put(s) you off, or that you felt your BRFA was being derailed with the "source code of bots" discussion? Or something else? I ask because we do want to make BRFA a pleasant experience to encourage botops.

I suppose in addition, I'm also confused by However, I believe it's fair to say that some of the additional requirements that have been discussed would have likely deterred me from submitting a BRFA. because everything you did in your BRFA would easily satisfy any new requirements that have been mooted recently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ProcrastinatingReader: Sorry for the delay in responding. I do have some thoughts on this and will share them soon. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw that Darth Vader was semi-protected indefinitely. I previously requested it for the same reason. It was semi-protected indefinitely in 2011 and it didn’t work. That’s enough! 2603:8080:D03:89D4:24B3:323B:92D5:B580 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page protection is reserved for exceptional cases that can't be managed otherwise. While it may seem like administrators frequently protect pages, it's a tiny number of actions compared to the total number of pages, and we deny many requests. It's a mistake to view page protection as the only solution for disruption. Wikipedia tries very hard to address disruption through registered users watchlisting pages, experienced editors giving newcomers feedback (and warnings if necessary), partial and full blocks, and many other methods. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had made the report on the “Khmer people” page (I wasn’t logged in) when User:Kromla vandalized the page. Then I noticed the page was semi-protected at the request of Kromla, which I agree it should be, but also the user seemed to do so to prevent the restoration of the page and continue their pro-Thai rhetoric (which is a violation since the page should support non-biased information). Yesterday, I fortunately was able to restore the Khmer people page to the form it was before Kromla’s vandalization. However, a Wikipedian professional restorer unintentionally reverted it back to its vandalized form under Kromla. I did submit a topic to his talk page to tell him what he did. Just in case, can you let him know that he reverted the page back to its vandalized form and request to restore it back to its original form before Kromla’s vandalization so there isn’t any misunderstanding? I really appreciate it! Mojomaaa123543 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mojomaaa123543: Thanks. I responded on the other user talk page, but I'll add here that the best option is to have a discussion on the article talk page. Edit warring is never a good option. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand and will do so. I’m not expecting you to fully understand, but there is a lot of discourse between Khmer and Thai people solely due to how similar our cultures are. So it’s really disheartening not just to me, but the Khmer community in general when we see pro-Thai rhetoric, which had occurred on the Khmer people Wikipedia page, in an attempt to erase and severely manipulate Khmer history, especially since I believe strongly in co-existence. I will still try to use the article talk page, but if there’s a pro-Thai vandal on the page, it is highly likely there would just be an argument about Khmer and Thai history rather than fixing the situation which could ultimately lead to a similar situation as now. I just want to clarify things for the future, but I will take your suggestions as you would know best. Thank you. Mojomaaa123543 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi I have a issue with @KH-1.
He has reverted a edit I made on Postage Paid and has not given a reason for it.
He also tagged me with Vandalism in addition of Reference Spam.
I have requested some Admins to check this out at Wikipedia:Help desk.
But you have confronted this user before on Edit Warring, so I thought you should check it out too.
I do understand that I am a new user, but I am wanting to get other people to check this for the below reasons.

1. This user has a history of mass reverting other peoples edits.
2. This user has not given a reason for his/her reverts.
3. All of there recent edits are reverts.
4. This user has been contacted multiple times for the reverts they did.

Thank you. Sheriff U3 talk 22:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have been informed that I should post my request for Admin help on Admin Noticeboard for Edit Warring.

So please check my post there. Sheriff U3 talk 22:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

They actually posted at ANI. Your input would be welcome. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the discussion is basically done so I don't have anything to add, but thanks for the heads up. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry I misread a article made on the 3r rule.Sheriff U3 talk 03:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey it is me again. So you seem to know a lot. So I saw wondering if you could give me some pointers.
And please don't tell me to go through the Tutorial, I have been told to go there lots of times.
I am not wanting to push any buttons (get it?). But anything you suggest I will read if I have not already.
Don't worry I have not edited to much either, most of the edits were references, and removing old tags that did not apply anymore.
Thank you! User Page Talk Contributions 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry had updated my Signature and forgot to add Sheriff U3.User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 04:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sheriff U3: People are recommending it because it's very good!

1. I think you'd benefit from reading these:

• 10 Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
• Introduction to policies and guidelines
• Introduction to referencing
• Civility

2. More specific to referencing:

• Reliable sources for the basics.
• Perennial sources if you are wondering about a specific source. If it's listed and green, use it. If it's yellow, try to find something better. If it's red, don't use it. And if it's not listed, consider asking on WP:RSN or just find a better source.

3. For a longer list, check out this Plain and simple guide to Wikipedia.

I hope this helps. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes as they are different ones then what others have shown me.

I do like referencing so far, I just did not know about the "no websites that sell" rule, and I will find others too.

I will read through them as I can. Thank you again. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 06:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

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.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply