Animal lover 666

Apologies for giving an incorrect warning and revert, I've undone both of those. I'll add an explaination at the top for reviewers in the future; Animal lover 666 is helpfully changing manual taxoboxes into automated taxoboxes which are much easier to maintain. These pages look like they've been vandalised for a very short time after they've been changed over (so you might catch it under recent changes as I did), as well as having a misleading diff, but the page will update quickly and it'll be back to normal. Uses x (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to the taxobox in Oiophassus resulted in a broken taxobox. I am neither an expert on moths nor an expert on fixing taxoboxes, so I reverted your edit. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Animal lover 666! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to Arkarua resulted in a broken speciesbox that displays an error message. I have reverted to the previous version, as I do not know how to fix the problem. - Donald Albury 01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that I briefly reverted your change to the taxobox of a page on my watchlist. I did so because the Wikiproject Gastropod banner on the talk page of that article asks us to use the Bouchet & Rocroi (2005) classification for consistency. Only later did I discover the discussion at WT:GAST#Outdated taxboxes agreeing to change to Bouchet et al. (2017). Please could you add a link to that discussion in your edit summary (which was blank in this case). It would also be nice to get agreement to change the banner before further taxoboxes are changed. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, gastropod banner has now been changed: see WT:GAST. Jmchutchinson (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Vaticidalprophet. I noticed that you recently removed content from Adalia bipunctata without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!--Quisqualis (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your work converting manual taxoboxes to automatic ones. You've been leaving some parameters in place that are deprecated in manual taxoboxes, and which have had functionality disabled in automatic taxoboxes.

|image_width=, |image2_width= and |range_map_width= are deprecated and non-functional in automatic taxoboxes. In the vast majority of cases, you just remove the parameter. In rare cases where an image has an extremely narrow/tall or wide/short aspect ratio, the *_width parameters should be replaced with a *_upright parameter (the first image in Trachipterus is one I judge to need some rescaling).

|subgenus= is deprecated and non-functional in automatic taxoboxes. It should be replaced with |parent=. Changing the parameter to parent will require creating a taxonomy template if one doesn't already exist. The standard format for plant subgenera taxonomy templates is "Foo subg. bar"; for animals it is "Foo (Bar)". You might consider just removing |subgenus= outright if there's no article for the subgenus, and the genus article doesn't provide a list of species by subgenera. Manual taxoboxes should continue to use |subgenus=.

|name= almost never does anything useful and should be removed. If the name value is identical to a vernacular name title it has no effect. If the name value is an italicized version of a genus/binomial title, it has no effect. If the name is an un-italicized version of a genus/binomial title, it has a bad effect. Some articles on mammal species put a reference for the vernacular name under the name parameter; that's about the only situation I'm aware of where the name parameter accomplishes something worthwhile.

{{Italic title}} is never needed in articles with an automatic taxobox. All taxobox templates have some functionality in italicizing the displayed title without needing {{Italic title}}. In manual taxoboxes, |name= and |Italic title= work at cross purposes; if the value for name is italicized, then the displayed title will not be italicized, unless Italic title is included. This messy situation is a legacy of the history of Wikipedia's support for italicizing titles. Automatic taxobox templates have more sophisticated code for italicizing titles.

{{DEFAULTSORT}} is sometimes present at the bottom of taxon articles (just above categories). This template is also basically legacy code when it comes to taxon articles. Unless it inverts the order of a vernacular name (e.g. "cardinal, northern"), it should be removed. Plantdrew (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

How about the |name= parameter where the article is at the scientific name, but the parameter is the common name? For example, Baoris farri has the line |name=Paintbrush swift. Animal lover 666 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Taxonomy/Therapoda/?/? has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

The new Knesset won't be seated until tomorrow; see here: [1]. It'd be silly to revert your changes, though.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was just writing a very similar message – just an FYI that they don't take office till tomorrow, so any claims of people being 'current MKs' is a little premature – best to wait until tomorrow (I have a few articles on new MKs ready to publish but was waiting until they were sworn in). Also, Davidi gave up his seat, which is expected to be taken by Idit Silman. Cheers, Number 57 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, rather than simply removing the Current MKs template from the ones that lost their seats, it would be helpful if you could also edit their infoboxes to add a completion year of their terms. Cheers, Number 57 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

As the old Knesset is no longer relevant at the point that I started (after the end of the work day in Israel), it seemed to me like a reasonable time to do it. The only real alternative would be to do all 56 edits (the new version of the template; remove the template from the non-returning MKs; and add it to all new/returning MKs who already have articles) instaniously when the new Knesset's first session starts. Animal lover 666 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re this edit, what does Middle-class Miocene mean? I mean the "class" bit of that. SpinningSpark 17:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

A mistake, I have now fixed it. Animal lover 666 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Did you intend to make use of Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda/?/?? It's not currently used by any article's taxobox. I created its parent taxonomy template to avoid an error, but both can be deleted if it's not to be used. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking back at my edits around the same time, this template was set up for Apatodon. This was based on my understanding of the article, which placed it as a likely therapod, possibly Ornothischian (as opposed to Saurischians, which include therapods), definite dinosaur. Animal lover 666 (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

But it's not actually used, right? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not since YorkshireExpat removed my use at the end of August. Animal lover 666 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so it's not needed now and I'll move it to Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Peter coxhead: My bad, meant to 'unnecessary' it at the time. @Animal lover 666: I half expected you to question that one, but my logic was Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda/?/? didn't make sense as the taxonomy of Therapoda is well known? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Template:Taxonomy/Tunicata/?/?, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Taxonomy/Tunicata/?/? has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

"induucates", "Colouu temperature"? - DVdm (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note: by the way, changing color to colour seems to be the only thing you are doing here lately. Are you aware of wp:ENGVAR and wp:RETAIN? - DVdm (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm taking articles which are inconsistent in spelling the word, and making them consistent. See my summaries. Animal lover 666 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed that. I was just checking  . Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It would be reasonable to argue that I'm changing it in the wrong direction (I certainly would neither argue nor revert if someone were to consistently change the spelling, except in quotes and proper names, in the other direction), the spelling should always be consistent in any article. Animal lover 666 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey Template:Taxobox disambiguation parent and Template:Taxobox disambiguation rank are both unused. Are they still needed? Gonnym (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Example for Zeus (an ambiguous taxon)
Scientific classification
Ambiguous taxon:	[[Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#Title conventions|Do not use this template Please use Zeus (fish) or Zeus (fungus)]]

Yes, they are, to ensure that an ambiguous taxon will - if used in an automatic taxobox - display a message to the editor who added it. Animal lover |666| 08:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you show me where the Requested move discussion was for this? I can't find it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

There wasn't. Animal lover |666| 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You should have made one, as moves like this are (or can be) controversial. I am going to roll back all your changes now, and suggest you file one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  It appears that you have been canvassing— pinging a biased choice of users to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not selectively ping only those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've been following your work on converting various London stations to use Template:Adjacent stations. Excellent stuff, thank you. Your recent one to Heathrow Terminal 4 railway station results in a header of Crossrail, which is incorrect (Crossrail does not extend to Heathrow). It's possible this affects, or will affect, other stations as well. As the relationship between the service ("Elizabeth line") and lines it uses (GWML, GENL, Crossrail, Heathrow Rail Link,...) is messy, would a simple "Elizabeth line" be better for all? Bazza (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reading the relevant articles, it appeared to me that Elizabeth Line is the first line, and the only one already in existence, from a system of 3 lines called the Crossrail. If I'm wrong, sorting out the station data in Module:Adjacent stations is most of the work in fixing what I did, the data there comes directly from Template:LCR stations. Also note that its sister template, Template:LCR lines, appears to agree with my analysis. Animal lover |666| 09:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

In fact, User:Bazza 7, what it would take is as follows:

1. Copy the content from Module:Adjacent stations/Crossrail to Module:Adjacent stations/Elizabeth Line
2. In Module:Adjacent stations/Elizabeth Line, move the file link from line 27 to overwrite the file link in line 7; change the word Crossrail in lne 6 to Elizabeth Line.
3. Go through lines 10-23 in both modules, removing any line either module if it doesn't belong.
4. To immediately fix all pages I placed the Crossrail links on, replace the content of Module:Adjacent stations/Crossrail with the line return require "Module:Adjacent stations/Elizabeth line" (and then I will fix the pages and revert that last edit). Alternatively, check which pages transclude Module:Adjacent stations/Crossrail, and change any parameter in Template:Adjacent stations on these pages named "system" possibly with a number after it from "Crossrail" to "Elizabeth Line".

Animal lover |666| 09:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your thoughts. The Crossrail article has been trimmed recently to make clearer that it refers to the project to build the central London portion from Paddington to Whitechapel, and the two branches to the GEML and Abbey Wood respectively. I've also seen "Crossrail" used refer to the resulting new lines (as opposed to the GWML, GEML, etc).

Module:Adjacent stations/Crossrail includes some data for the speculative Crossrail 2, but none that I can see has been used so far in any articles. It might be sensible to remove the Crossrail 2-only items, such as Chelsea, Hampton, Kingston, etc.

I am assuming you will do what you suggest; there are only eight articles which use Module:Adjacent stations/Crossrail. I am happy to assist should you want some help, under instruction as two working independently on the same code can be messy! Bazza (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

According to what you said, it would appear that part of the Elizabeth Line is part of the Crossrail but an other part isn't. However, it's definitely intended to be one line. Additionally, the list of stations (the ones not named by the primary pattern used for this system) is a mixture of the Elizabeth line and Crossrail Line 2 (and possibly 3, I don't know). So far I haven't finished the Elizabeth Line, this is the reason that I haven't started on Crossrail Line 2. Animal lover |666| 13:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think we're agreed. The "Elizabeth line" is not a physical line, but a single service, with three termini in the west (Reading and two Heathrow stations) and two termini in the east (Shenfield and Abbey Wood). Its trains run on several physical lines: the GWML (from Reading to Paddington), the Heathrow Rail Link (from Heathrow to the GWML), Crossrail (from Paddington via Whitechapel to Abbey Wood and the GEML), and the GEML from Stratford to Shenfield.

Currently, the link from the GWML to Crossrail is not open, and the service uses the GWML to Paddington main line station; similarly, the section from Crossrail to the GEML is not yet open and the service uses the GEML from Liverpool Street main line station to Shenfield.

Your proposal to split the module for the Elizabeth line service from that for the Crossrail physical line is sensible. Eventually, the Crossrail module should contain only stations from Paddington (EL) to Abbey Wood; or you may decide to scrap it completely. Similarly, I think anything about Crossrail 2 should be separated from Crossrail: the route, stations, construction and funding are not confirmed; indeed, the project has been suspended, at least temporarily.

Whether the Elizabeth line service would be extended to run on Crossrail 2 in the future, or another service name introduced, is WP:CRYSTAL. Bazza (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Animal lover 666. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Avner Netanyahu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Party lists for the 2003 Israeli legislative election, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Party lists for the 2006 Israeli legislative election, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MPGuy2824:This list is comparable to the already extant Party lists for the 2009 Israeli legislative election, being complete and including a link to the source site for the information. Animal lover |666| 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

My suggestions: a) convert the external link into a ref. b) try to pass one of these articles through AFC. The AFC reviewer should give you some good feedback. I would recommend finding (and adding) news articles, where each party is announcing their candidates for that election. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Finding such sources is simple if done during the election process (note that the lists from 2019 onwards all have them), but difficult 15-20 years back and nearly impossible in the 1990s and earlier. Animal lover |666| 08:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Animal lover 666. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Party lists for the 2003 Israeli legislative election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is little relationship between the relative truth behind these disputes and the relative sizes of the groups trying to skew Wikipedia in each direction. - This is going to my u/p :-) TrangaBellam (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Animal lover 666. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Party lists for the 2006 Israeli legislative election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Her, not he. [2] Jehochman ^Talk 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Animal lover 666. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Party lists for the 2003 Israeli legislative election".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Animal lover 666,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This first talk edit by Jacurek tell you all you need to know about this person. This antisemitic rant invokes a the well known Judeopolonia antisemitic canard.

After Jacurek got into hot water over his editing of Jewish topics, with his bias crystal clear, Piotrus came in with a welcome and a barnstar.

However, this is not all. From the WikiLeaks entry Wikipediametric mailinglist: alleged cabal tactics and stalking of editors, 2009, which spurned the WP:EEML case, one can see the message post titled 20090604-1924-[WPM] New Polish cabal members_ Jacurek and Tymek.eml in this message we see Piotrus suggesting Jacurek as a possible member, and Volunteer Marek endorsing them for membership as well as stating they were in frequent e-mail contact with them.

Now to sockpuppet GizzyCatBella. This account edited Smolensk air disaster back in 2015 for a while. It then sat on a shelf for a couple of years.

GizzyCatBella was activated again in Feburary 2018. When? When Pioturs and Volunteer Marek were engaged in disputes on antisemitism in Poland.

The degree of support between GizzyCatBella and Piotrus as well as GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek is massive. This is not a coincidence. This includes jumping into articles and disputes on call.

Besides these being longtime collaborators for whom their old colleague is obvious, their past scheming in WP:EEML and in private e-mails is an established fact. The clearest explanation for the behaviour of Jacurek (GizzyCatBella) is that they were called in by Volunteer Marek and that the have been coordinating their activity over the past five years on Wikipedia. 5.100.193.157 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am well aware that GCB is one of the users listed as part of the Poland-skewed Holocaust distortionists. I didn't know about any off-line coordination, but it doesn't surprise me. I also saw GCB's block for sockpuppetry; the primary account meant nothing to me, buy that this user is antisemitic is no surprise given the current case. Animal lover |666| 05:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please email me. Jehochman ^Talk 07:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Animal lover 666 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Colour classifications has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 8 February 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) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I like your username and I am so curious what motivated it. The "animal lover" part fits with your taxonomy editing, but I don't think I've seen you edit many devilish topics that fit with the 666 part! I'm only wondering because I think usernames are interesting. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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) 23:17, 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

 Module:Infobox language has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:17, 10 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