Sable232

I would like to re add the image you removed from the Mercury Cougar discussion as it is prudent the Cougars advanced for the time restraint system and is a publicly available government image, What can I do to correctly cite this image as it is in the public domain, Thank you. ~~~~ Luftwaffespectre (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, you will need to confirm what governmental organization actually created it, confirm that organization's work is in the public domain, and then use the correct copyright tag (it will almost certainly not be Creative Commons). Someone at Wikimedia Commons may be of more help in determining this.

However, the crash test image is not a suitable image for the article. It is low-resolution, grainy, and does not provide any useful information to the reader. It is impossible for someone who isn't familiar with crash testing vehicles to interpret anything about the image, and it isn't even readily apparent that the depicted car is a Cougar. --Sable232 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was my assumption that because it was a report commissioned by a government agency for the benefit of the public and was distributed/made available on a government website, that it was in the public domain and free for use.

As far as the image is concerned the source was correctly linked as an NHSTA report that confirms the vehicle was a Cougar.

The reason I wanted to add the image is because it demonstrated a well maintained safety space for the drive in a full frontal impact, my goal was to provide real evidence that the Cougar was in fact a safe car for the time and its high accident/death rate was due to the audience (teenagers and young adults) it was driven by at the time. Luftwaffespectre (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I recall, the image on Commons was credited to Transport Canada yet sourced to a NHTSA document. Being an agency of the U.S. Federal government, NHTSA works are public domain, but I don't know if the same applies to Canada.

The rest of this would be a better discussion at either the article talk page or at the WikiProject Automobiles project talk page. Crash test images are almost never included in articles here. --Sable232 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWk5pu_whw0 0:31 he says in Talbotville ontario,how can I use this as my citation? I have only found one vehicle that was built in STAP that had the correct name of Talbotville for location Crownvicsaregood (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

A YouTube video is not a reliable source.

Nevertheless, the correct location is Southwold. Southwold, Ontario is the legal township the factory was located within. Talbotville is an unincorporated community about two miles south of the former factory site, so to give that as the location would not be as accurate. --Sable232 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This LTA started editing again. Could you please add it to your LTA list? I'll delete my page. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely sure what LTA you're referring to. Do you have any further details? How long has the LTA been editing? What other IP ranges have there been? I do recall someone making somewhat similar edits in the past, but it's been a while since I've seen them. --Sable232 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

may i ask why did u revert my edits to Chevrolet Tahoe, [1] and [2]? 83.168.137.1 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because you introduced an error to an image caption, stating that the truck is a GMT400 when it is clearly a later GMT800 model, and you added a mention of a "GMC Yukon XL" in a paragraph about changes for 1995, when no such vehicle existed at the time. --Sable232 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

i understand, may i do the changes again, fixing these mistakes? 83.168.137.1 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like your other changes were good, so yes. --Sable232 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

gotcha, thanks, feel free to check out if anything is wrong [3] 83.168.137.1 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello sir, may I ask why did u revert my edit to Ford F-Series (fourteenth generation) - [4]? per the usage on Template:Main it ''should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{Main}} link in the lead section would be the article itself, which is not useful. {{Broader}} may be appropriate in this case.'' the other changes i made are surely not controversial 83.168.137.1 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{Broader}} states that it is for use in sections, with the implication that it is not meant for the lead. It also states that is is to be used for an article discusses a subject more broadly, but is not a main article (which should use {{Main}} (emphasis added). For any instance where a generation has been split off to its own page, the original article is the main article.

Furthermore, {{Main}} is what's used in every other instance of this, and consistency should be maintained.

I mistakenly thought that the F-150 Lightning EV had a disambiguated title and wasn't at the main title like it is. I should've checked before reverting the entire edit. --Sable232 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

can i revert my changes, changing the hatnote to main? 83.168.137.1 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Took care of it for you. I was in the middle of doing that yesterday when I got called away and didn't save the edit. --Sable232 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

appreciate it 83.168.137.1 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know why you reverted my edits on area and population density? The Milwaukee Metropolitan Area is only 1,460 sq mi (https://www.mmac.org/uploads/3/7/9/6/37962993/metro_facts_14.pdf pg. 3). Furthermore, the population density you reverted to includes water, of which the metropolitan area is more than 50%. Population density is always calculated using population over square miles of land (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-crowded-city-in-the-united-states.html ). You also reverted my edits on the Twin Cities, which uses urban instead of metropolitan population and area for its density. Unless otherwise noted, density should be for the metropolitan area only. Both of your reversions contradict Census data and are misleading. 2601:249:8680:4260:604A:1AEC:F9A7:EA76 (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edits because you changed sourced information with no explanation and provided no other source. The information in both articles is sourced to the Census Bureau. Whether or not the existing information was correct is irrelevant - unexplained and unsourced tampering with such figures is one of the most common forms of disruption on Wikipedia and is generally reverted on sight.

The density listed on Minneapolis-St. Paul accurately reflects what's in the source, however, the infobox parameter was incorrectly entered, causing it to not appear as "urban" density, which is now fixed. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Red links are not a problem and do not need to be removed as a matter of course". So what function do they serve? Apart from the ones that are linked to Wiki.de, why can they stay? Does this mean I can make as many red links as possible, just like all the ones I have removed? Exactly what is the rules regarding creating red links? How many may I create? Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you had read the guideline I linked, you would know that.

For example, there may be an article on the Dodge Model 30 someday, so there is nothing wrong with that red link.

If you make good on your threat above to disruptively create scores of unsuitable red links, you will likely be blocked. --Sable232 (talk) 00:06, 5 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. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevrolet AK Series, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Georgia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a rule against lists? Even if prose is preferred by Wikipedia, lists and tables are often better for technical info like this, providing more conciseness, clarity, and easier reference. In what way did I duplicate the TOC? AFAIK, I did not remove any conversion templates, they were just moved from prose to tables. Your one legitimate change was restoring any broken links to section headings....so, how to I track links to ensure edits don't break any? Gtofever (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)gtofeverReply

Yes, prose is preferred, and it's the format that the vast majority of articles use. Making a bulleted list in the article lead that lists out the same things that the table of contents does is unhelpful.

In general, section headings shouldn't be changed without good reason, because they are frequently linked to in other articles. Pay attention to how other similar articles are formatted. Headings should be simple and concise whenever possible - on engine articles, numerical displacement alone is preferred and is overwhelmingly the most common format, so it shouldn't be deviated from without good reason. --Sable232 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What did you mean by these:

Sable232 comment: This is an encyclopedia, not your personal fansite.

Sable232 comment: Gtofever - enough of this. Gtofever (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You keep adding esoteric detail and borderline trivia, and making the article difficult for non-enthusiasts to read. More detail is on the article talk page.

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) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The T6 Ranger is much bigger than the Sport Trac; the Maverick is almost identical in size. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Sport Trac is 210 inches long and 733⁄4 inches wide. The 2019 Ranger crew cab is 211 inches long and 731⁄4 inches wide. The Maverick is nearly a foot shorter. --Sable232 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it against Wikipedia rules to include safety recall on car models, as you removed these sections that I inserted? @MoCars MoCars (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not "against Wikipedia rules," per se, but that past discussions arrived at a consensus that recall information generally shouldn't be included. If you disagree, you can open a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. --Sable232 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to repair / fix templates, go for it. You do not understand the overlinking or redlinks. We can talk about it here. Delectable1 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the Aveo article you removed a list of competitors, why? Delectable1 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:Red link.

I have not edited any Aveo article recently; I don't know what you're talking about. --Sable232 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sable232, you are creating errors. On the Aveo page you removed a list of competitors, why did you do that? You're not right about the ambulance page. Delectable1 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have never edited Aveo and have not made an edit to Chevrolet Aveo since 2019. You are clearly not competent to edit Wikipedia given your surreal accusations, addition of bad grammar in articles, and nonsensical edit summaries. --Sable232 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are not an admin. You don't even understand this topic. Delectable1 (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You also made an error, it was a church not a venue. Delectable1 (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To be honest I was trying to fix mistakes that need to be adjusted, like Clayton is correct for the beetle’s Australian production location, so no it’s not Melbourne, even though Clayton is suburb of Melbourne, I’m not trying to be a spambot, I was trying to do a helpful thing that was to fix mistakes on wiki pages to make it was correct, i was trying to fix the page, but not vandalising the article, i hope you understand. Thanks Liam Liam200351 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was not disruptive, it was acutally I was saying like I said before I know what is doing, is the last time I’m going to say this but I needed to fix the location of the Australia location, I’m Also good with vehicle knowledge so that you know what was the right location. Can you please leave it as Clayton? Don’t change it to Melbourne please? I hope you understand if not that’s fine Thanks Liam Liam200351 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Clayton is correct. The cited source states (CKD) assembly started in Australia in 1954, with the first fully Australian manufactured Beetle leaving the plant at Clayton, near Melbourne, in 1960. However, there is nothing there that supports the misleading link to Oakleigh that you were adding. Additionally, it's possible that stating Melbourne was intentional. For example, Kansas City Assembly is actually in Claycomo, Missouri and St. Thomas Assembly was actually in Southwold; it isn't uncommon for plants to be described in terms of the major city, not the specific part of the metropolitan area they're actually located in. That said, I won't put it back to Melbourne, but if that was done intentionally before, anyone else may change it back. --Sable232 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Acutally yes City of Oakleigh was the shire for Clayton back in the day until 1994. Liam200351 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Oakleigh That was shire Liam200351 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, there is nothing in the cited source that supports that, so there is no justification for linking to it. Furthermore, a Wikipedia reader should not need to be familiar with Australian administrative divisions to be able to understand the location of a car plant. Clayton, Victoria is the only proper article to link to - it even mentions the VW factory. --Sable232 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Hi Sable232! I hope you're doing well and that your day has been pleasant. I just wanted to leave you a message in order to talk to you about some concerns that I have regarding some of your recent comments and responses toward other editors in some discussions. For example, the comment you made Special:Diff/1231680487. Telling someone they are incompetent is uncivil, and directly conflicts with one of Wikipedia's founding principle's. It's a real bummer to see a discussion turn into something like this, and I just don't want to see you get blocked or finding yourself in hot water with the community because of how you've recently behaved toward others here. I just want to quietly and informally give you a nudge on the shoulder about Wikipedia's civility policy so that you can correct this behavior before it leads you into any trouble. If you need help with anything, have questions, or just need someone to talk to, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. I wish you well, and I hope that you'll take this as an opportunity to self-evaluate how you respond and communicate with others, and that you'll do what you need to do in order to keep calm, remain civil, and keep discussions positive and focused toward our primary goal of building an encyclopedia. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insanityclown1: - Wikipedia:Competence is required is my reference, and when a user shows not only a lack of English comprehension on the English Wikipedia but refuses to acknowledge the same, that shows they lack editing competence. When a user can make absurd accusations of doing something on articles I either never edited or haven't edited in years, that may not necessarily be a lack of editing competence, but it is never a sign of a constructive editor. I don't believe it is incivility when "competence" is the exact word the linked essay uses. You are, however, correct in the sense that I shouldn't've outright stated that where I did, and I did regret being that blunt after I'd read it again later.

I am, however, bewildered as to the defense that has come to the user in question. While not necessarily flagrant, the grammar and prose errors are clear to me, and the user's refusal to accept that they shouldn't be making such changes is disruptive.

Thank you for reaching out; if I am wildly off base with that AN/I report I will withdraw it, but I do think that Delectable1 needs to be blocked from article space until they can show that they understand the problems with their editing. --Sable232 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just don't see the issues you are seeing. The edits are a bit clumsy in places, but don't indicate a below average grasp of the English language in my humble opinion. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the revert- but good that I reverted so you were notified. I thought you had corrected some 1915 errors but I see it was my own errors in copying. I also see that you erased part of the blockquote. So after reading the blockquote again, I see why you cut it. I had fun writing the article and I thank you for your diligence. Bruxton (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bruxton: No worries. Re-reading it, my edit summary was more pointed than it needed to be, so apologies for that. Suffice it to say I wasn't expecting the edit to be challenged and it was a bit late at night. I felt that where the Electriquettes were stationed at the exposition didn't have much bearing on the history of it, so I didn't think that part of the quote added anything. Thanks for writing the article - I'd never heard of those things before. Quite interesting. --Sable232 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you much! The good thing is when I mess up something it gets fixed by better editors! Hope to see you around the project. Bruxton (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your effort to tag pages, but I've declined your G5 tag on SR Carpați (truck). The reason for this is that the creator is not blocked and hasn't been confirmed to be related to the sockmaster. I understand you submitted a SPI report, but you need to wait until it's been processed to add G5 tags. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you keep doing it? 50.207.122.106 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have been reverted by several other editors, not just Sable232. Read WP:OR and WP:RS and WP:BRD. Also, when you edit logged out, your IP location information is visible to all, just so you know.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:15, 30 August 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

Wiki UFF DA! - Editing the Wikipedia for Absolute Beginners

Oh, you know, if it isn't just the most basic workshop ever needed, "Wikipedia Editing for Absolute Beginners" for those who haven't had the pleasure of diving into that simple process quite yet. Bless their hearts, they're just starting out, so we thought, why not put something together? Because, you know, it's not like it's rocket science or anything, but hey, we're always happy to lend a hand where we can. And just a little bit of Minnesota Nice to help along the way. 'Uff da!' you say? Well editing the Wikipedia is not hard at all! Join us at one of our three FREE workshops in Minnesota, where you can learn how to edit Wikipedia and add Minnesota's local history in a relaxed and supportive setting. Work alongside others and discover how easy editing Wikipedia can be. The workshops aim to enhance the ability of communities in Greater and rural Minnesota to edit Wikipedia and comprehend it's editing culture and guidelines, as well as to expand Wikipedia's coverage of Minnesota's history. Already good at editing the Wikipedia? You're welcome to come and work on local history Minnesota Wikipedia articles alongside others. Learn more » Registration is required to be included for lunch. Event 1 @ Morris, MN Date & time: Wednesday, October 23, 2024, 11 am to 4 pm CDT Location: West Central Minnesota Historical Center, McGinnis Room, Briggs Library, University of Minnesota-Morris, Morris, Minnesota Event 2 @ Chisholm, MN Date & time: Thursday, November 14, 2024, 11 am to 4 pm CDT Location: MN Discovery Center, 1005 Discovery Drive, Chisholm, Minnesota Event 3 @ Mankato, MN Date & time: Wednesday, November 20, 2024, 11 am to 4 pm CDT Location: Room 2057, 601 Maywood Ave, Memorial Library, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota Facilitator: Myotus | Joe Hoover These workshops are put on by the Minnesota Historical Society as part of their commitment to the Minnesota local history community and are led by Local History Services.

Myotus (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
• October 22–24: Discussion phase
• October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–?: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

 

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the area? You're invited to the November 2024 Minnesota User Group Meeting   The organizer of this soiree is Joe Hoover aka Myotus feel free to drop him a message. Okay its been a while since the Wikipedia Minnesota User Group has meet. Since the last time we meet there has been social upheaval, plague, etc... - no small thing to be sure. There has been some sad lonely discussions on the Minnesota Meetup page on getting together but little action. So here it is. Come and be seen. Talk about the future of the Minnesota User Group and see what nefarious plans we can hatch. Date: Sunday, November 3, 2024 Time: 1 to 3:30 pm (reminder - Daylight Saving Time ends) Place: Wild Mind Ales' 6031 Pillsbury Ave, Minneapolis, MN Look forward to seeing folks!

Myotus (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I declined your report at WP:AIV over this edit, and I'll explain why. The clue is in the edit summary, "Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit". It is well-known that anyone trying to edit Wikipedia on the mobile interface is going to struggle, and in this case, somebody has tried a copyedit on an Android phone and managed to get everything in upper case. It looks like a WP:COMPETENCE issue to me, which isn't what AIV is set up for - that's for editors that obviously need to be blocked right now as they're being blatantly disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ritchie333: I don't doubt that it's a CIR issue, but given other disruptive edits like this, I don't see any other way to stop the ongoing disruption outside of a block. They seemingly haven't noticed that all but two of their 68 edits have been reverted - how else does one get the attention of someone like this? --Sable232 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've seen this scenario many, many, many times, and the honest answer is you won't get any communication. The canonical example is Cliff1911 who disappeared the minute one admin decided enough was enough and blocked them. I suspect the same will probably happen here; I just don't quite think we're at that stage. You could try a thread at ANI, but I suspect it would end up like this, with a whole bunch of meta discussion about why our user interface sucks for getting people to talk to us. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply