Wikipedia talk:Standard offer

This page was nominated for deletion on 2010-12-08. The result of the discussion was snow keep.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia essays Mid‑impact This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Mid This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Standard Offer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Standard Offer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the section "Note for blocked users": it seems to contradict the current banning policy that it references, which states "Exception: A third-party block review that results in a normal administrator block being endorsed is not converted into a community ban." This is apparently the result of an RfC that occurred after (this essay's) paragraph was last touched.

Unless there is some subtlety in this doctrine that I have overlooked, it seems like this paragraph is outdated and should be removed.

Rabbitflyer (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to remove the "conversion" part. - jc37 07:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "They discussion usually takes several days." to "The discussion usually takes several days." in the How does it work? section. Zxcv6666 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the variations section, it says banned users must make contributions to other WMF projects. It does not say blocked users so is contributing to other WMF projects required for blocked but not banned users. Zxcv6666 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are blocked for 182 days when six months is selected by the admin and some users are blocked for 184 days when six months is selected by the admin. If the standard offer is six months, how many days is it exactly? 1.129.110.121 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]