User talk:Banedon

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your principled opposition to defamatory synthesis μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The P. Papers item should never have been posted at ITN, it is pure synthesis (offshore > evil) and violates WP:BLP and a host of other policies. I didn't get involved for the mere reason that opposing SJW presumptions gets you nothing but enemies. Some of us have age and or reason to teach us that salacious headlines are not guilty verdicts.

Bravo! for your (censored) effort at a mature approach to a tabloid meme that has already disappeared from public consciousness. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Afraid of Peer Review? is about publishing of false papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is a misconduct. And it is in science. Please, revert --Geysirhead (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on the article's talk page. Briefly, I would still not call it scientific misconduct. Predatory publishing is misconduct, but not in the scientific sense. Banedon (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Link it, if you want to change my mind. Banedon (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)". Gladly, but I do not know how to find it quickly. I tried using some keywords, but no luck, and I do not have the time now to look through the hundreds of tweets. I suggest that you ask McCulloch about that directly. PS. The discussion page on QI deletion is now semi-protected, hence I cannot reply to you there. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Ok, so there are four (Pickering wrote two papers) - which is still too low. I originally quoted 80%. 26/30 is more than that. The objection remains. Banedon (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)"

If Pickering wrote two papers then that must be 5. Anyway there is over 25 popular science secondary sources, that alone is enough for notability. But there is also a book (scientific book published by the World Scientific publishing house) and DARPA grant among others. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am not going to ask McCulloch myself. You don't have time to look through hundreds of tweets, and neither do I. And no, there are only four papers if you click on that link and count. Banedon (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of the sources that I published on the talk page there was also a peer-reviewed Tajmar's paper that is not included in that first link (as it is a new paper). Why don't you e-mail or send a tweet to McCulloch - you can see there that he replies often to tweets, so I am pretty sure that he would provide you with an answer to your questions.88.145.199.104 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which puts it at 26/31 which is still >80%. As for emailing or tweeting McCulloch - why don't you do it? Banedon (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am already satisfied that his theory is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Besides I do not have an account on twitter.88.145.199.104 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not satisfied his theory is notable enough, and without more evidence you are not changing my mind. If you won't ask him, I most assuredly will not either. That's all. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look for it again when I'll find some time to do it. But why are you not satisfied that this theory is notable enough?

There is enough popular science secondary sources about the theory also in other contexts than Emdrive to make it notable for a separate Wikipedia article, for example: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-uk-scientist-claims-new-physics-explains-galaxy-rotation-theoretical-space-propulsion-1606367

https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/04/20/8558/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729002.000-sacrificing-einstein-relativitys-keystone-has-to-go.html?full=true

https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/07/30/can-the-pioneer-anomaly-be-explained-by-inertia-modification/

and several radio talk shows and youtube videos about the theory.

There is plenty of others sources proving notability. Just over 25 popular science secondary sources is enough for notability, but there is also a book about the theory (published by the World Scientific publishing house), 30 peer-reviewed papers and DARPA grant is also very significant. Objectively the evidence unequivocally shows that this theory is notable. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not satisfied the theory is notable enough? In part because, as I wrote in the AfD, after fifteen years there are very few people aside from McCulloch who are working on it. Banedon (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objective criteria for notability, as measured by primary and secondary sources are met, as per Wikipedia guidelines, that is enough for notability. Anyway, I found that table now, here you are: https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1396859743470329859
88.145.199.104 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That tweet actually indicates most groups have stopped working on it. Of the remaining groups, some cannot be verified ("Anon" and "Z.Komala"), and they also seem to be working on EM Drive instead of QI. I'm sorry but this just reinforces the redirect vote. Banedon (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That also shows that those experiments were recent, so as I said before the theory is gaining the momentum now, which supports notability. Z.Komala can be verified, as he publishes all his results and design details (including videos and photograps) on twitter. And no, he is not doing Emdrive, neither does the anon (it says explicity in the table 'capacitor' - so that has nothing to do with emdrive). Komala's sole purpose of these experiments was to confirm this theory. His work is ongoing, as you can see on his twitter account @ZKomala. None of the experiments listed in the table are about Emdrive - they all are designed to test QI predictions and thus confirm the theory. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give the full name & affiliation of Z. Komala, then, although I will say that relying on Twitter as a publishing platform is a red flag. The first four experiments in that tweet seem to be over (hence they don't have the - sign at the end), as well, and most of them didn't result in publications either. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Komala. Don't know his affiliation. He appears to be doing his experiments in a private lab of some factory. Only the first and the third experiments are over. Perez-Diaz according to McCulloch will be doing something with it again. And Komala right under that McCulloch's table tweeted that he is starting again: https://twitter.com/ZKomala/status/1396869012072566787 . Perez-Diaz with McCulloch sent recently their results to publication. Tajmar and Becker and Bhatt have already published.88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No papers published though by Komala, so can't tell how reputable his work is. If Perez-Diaz is working with McCulloch that's not a good sign either. So the result is still the same, almost nobody except McCulloch is working on the topic after 15 years. The number of people can be counted on two hands. I'm sorry but I'm sticking with redirect and I don't think I'll be changing my mind. I won't be responding anymore. Banedon (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Komala does not work for university so he has no obligation to publish papers. You can judge his work yourself. He posts all of it. McCulloch is providing only a theoretical basis for the paper, all the experimental part is done by Perez-Diaz and two of his post-docs. It is silly to redirect a theory that can predict so many things to just one subject (not even the most important one): http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/04/predictions-of-mihsc.html 88.145.199.104 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, the response to your thread at WT:ARBCOM has been dismissive. This is the status quo going back many years. ArbCom is above the community and does not respond to community pressure except in extreme cases. I have tried in vain for years to get ArbCom to reform. There have been small, subtle shifts in handling of cases but overall it's the same muddy quagmire that it has always been. It's true; ArbCom is not a court of law. People are dismissive of anyone who indicates the similarity, and treat not being like a court of law as some badge of honor. It's rather the opposite.

I could go on for a while about the abuses ArbCom heaps upon the community, and the community's inability to do anything about it. I won't bore you with the details unless you have insomnia :) For my part, I will never participate in an ArbCom case if I am named party. I do not recognize ArbCom's authority over me. They are abusive, willfully dismissive of policy, and generally incapable of assisting the community. Any case they generate about someone is guaranteed to result in sanctions (and usually heavy ones). The outcome is predetermined, and nobody can defend themselves. The structure of ArbCom and its processes make defense impossible. Using ArbCom as a means of dispute resolution is an exercise in utter futility, unless your goal is to get someone kicked off the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have your dim view of Arbcom, I certainly think arbitration works as a means of dispute resolution since the harsh remedies like blocking editors ends the disruption. It is not a fair process though since the outcome is mostly predetermined before the evidence is submitted. I do think Arbcom should strive to be more like a court of law, not less. Our legal systems are set up such that fairness is paramount and everyone has due process. If one cannot get that at Arbcom, then one effectively cannot get it anywhere on Wikipedia, which is not a good place to be. Banedon (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to serious structural and procedural problems with ArbCom, it's effectively impossible for an accused person to get fair treatment in a arbitration case. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Banedon (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is a self-styled tribunal . Under the guise of being a dispute resolution body which one would assume would examine all sides and enact an appropriate remedy, in fact it does neither. Arbcom members have gone on record as stating they are neither there to examine the merits of the case nor to examine the veracity of the plaintifs and their 'evidence'. Apparently the function of Arbcom is to simply count the votes in favour of opening a case. It's then followed by a long drawn out token process of so-called 'workshopping' to state their 'findings of fact' which in fact are merely a log of the claims of those clambering for sanctions. If one were to to label an Arbcom case as a show trial, it would not be wholly inaccurate. As per Hammersoft: The structure of ArbCom and its processes make defense impossible.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: Can we have an essay scrutinizing pain-points of the Arbcom functioning in one single WP:ESSAY? Like, User:Hammersoft/essays/Why arbcom is a mess? I would certainly appreciate such efforts and dedicate some time to read it... AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't be opposed to doing it, but it would be a very large amount of work. I have documented some of the abuses in my own personal documents off the project, but it is not properly organized. I use the material as reference points occasionally, such as the study I did across several years of ArbCom cases showing the dramatic, negative impact having a case named after a particular party is to that party. Maybe I'll get to this someday, but no promises. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft and Alexander Davronov: for obvious reasons since March 2020, I'm loath to do anything to help Wikipedia - except perhaps writing an article I feel is missing, or commenting on discussions about reform of Wikipedia governance. That's why I'm so vocal about things like Arbcom where far too often the issues are not treated as fairly and professionally as they should be. Like Hammersoft, I have amassed loads of material on my computers about Arbcom over the years and I would be happy to collaborate with him (off-Wiki) to realise such a project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but I have revert this article because I do not see any violation of the WP:MOSFILM film plot, as to be honest and is actual. I also do not see any error or grammar errors on the edit. Please do not revert the article, instead go voice it on the talk page and discuss first before making your move to revert the article. Thank you. 122.11.214.202 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This new plot is the one, but you can amend it with a fix of grammar mistakes. 122.11.214.202 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were sort of mentioned at AN - Crawdaunt (talk · contribs) left a rather vague complaint about an issue that needed no resolution, apparently, at Talk:MDPI. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banedon. Thank you for your courage to run in this year's ACE. This kind of scrutiny can sometimes be as challenging as an RfA - if not worse. Some candidates ran on a platform for changes in Arbcom. Now comes the cliff-hanger of waiting for the results. I' 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung. It's not so much of a cliffhanger for me actually, since I'm pretty confident I won't be elected - in fact I'd be surprised if I get more than 50% support. I don't mind not being elected, but chances are Arbcom will continue to be troubling =/ Banedon (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I wonder whether you like being nominated or self-nom for adminship. You can request it at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, or do an optional poll. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty ambivalent. If I become an admin then OK, but I don't need the tools and doubt I'd pass an RfA anyway. Banedon (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did get 300-odd supports in the ACE.. granted, also a lot of opposes, but RfA is supposed to be a lower bar than ACE, right? casualdejekyll 14:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TCEC Season 16, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCEC Season 16 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I remember of the engine evals, it's something like

• e4, d4, Nf3, c4, g3 +/=
• a3, b3, c3, Nc3, d3, e3, h3 =
• a4, Na3, b4, f3, f4, h4, Nh3 =/+
• g4 -/+

IIRC. I remember it basically by: the first tier clearly stake a claim in the centre from the start (e4, d4, Nf3, c4) or at least make it so that you cannot be stopped from doing so later (g3 can easily become a Catalan or English). The second tier is either "playing your fourth/tenth move early" (which can't be good because your opponent can make them less useful now that you've committed to them, but can't be too bad either since they're usually useful moves), or just can't really fit into anything too forceful (b3 is a bit slow and doesn't really stop e5 well which this sort of setup demands; and Nc3 can be forced into either a Vienna or Veresov, neither of which really pack a punch). The third tier actively creates weaknesses or actively wastes time with moves that can be made to look really silly, or at the very best transpose into playing a not-too-great Black opening (after 1.f3 d5, maybe I'd play 2.f4 and have a Dutch).

But of course, OR. (I did always have a soft spot for 1.b3, but casual experience suggests that 1...e5 is the annoying issue with it. I guess this is why Nimzovich played 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 instead.) :) Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think some kind of ranking for the opening moves is certainly what we want to have, but we must remember that objectively, every position is either winning, drawn, or losing. At some point in the future computers could very well display 0.00 after every opening move, which doesn't prove that 1. g4 is "as good as" 1. e4 for human play. But anyway for this particular content question I think we should amend WP:CHESSENGINE, and will be starting something in WT:Chess for it. Banedon (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose in the far future engines will show 0.00 for all the opening moves (or maybe all except 1.g4 – I personally agree with Kaufman that it might be lost, not that my opinion is worth much). I think Kaufman's quote in First-move advantage in chess#White has an enduring advantage rather explains well what I mean by "+/=" here: Black can get the draw with perfect play, but needs to be more careful than White. For humans, who cannot expect to play the engine-perfect move every time, that means something in addition to the objective evaluation. In pawnless chess endgame we already note something similar when it comes to the Q vs R endgame; sure it's theoretically won, but finding how to win is not so easy for humans. Double sharp (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the recent Tata Steel tournament, I guess I have to edit my statement from 2022 to read Nc3 can be forced into either a Vienna, Veresov, or Jobava London. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it seems likely that 1.g4 is losing. I expect the other opening moves are drawn, although 1.f3 is quite bad. Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there's circumstantial evidence that 1.g4 is the only losing move of White's 20 options. Still circumstantial though, no opening expert has come out to say that explicitly yet (at least, to the best of my knowledge). Banedon (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was honestly more surprised at first that 1.f3 isn't lost, since after 1...e5 that f-pawn is quite a liability! But the above link convinced me that it's probably still drawn.

Larry Kaufman said on TalkChess that it's likely that some Black responses to 1.e4, 1.d4, and 1.Nf3 lose on the spot (and not just obvious blunders like 1.e4 b5 or 1.e4 f5), with the Owen and Polish/St. George probably near the drawn/lost border. That might be a bit conservative: Matthew Sadler has quoted Peter Heine Nielsen as saying that the Pirc might be lost (although that doesn't prove that 1.e4 d6 is losing, since chessdb.cn suggests the best way to play after that is the Philidor, not the Pirc). Ah well. As long as my beloved Alekhine's Defence hasn't been proved lost, I'm content. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Banedon,

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) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Russo-Ukrainian war. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's WP:Anchoring? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. I clarified on the ARC. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

• For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

I love a good bluelink as much as anyone, especially that has a simple and meaningful name rather than yet another acronym. But given the forum and lack of obvious context, it might be useful to explain what WP:Anchoring is in [1]. DMacks (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And "crap, didn't even see the same question two threads up-page here":( DMacks (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read this and immediately thought of WP:ANCHOR, as an editor not commonly involved in contentious areas. Was wondering how it was relevant. Thanks for the clarification. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God Arbcom did not name the case "BrownHeadedGirl"! Banedon (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sergey Karjakin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 11:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Keep commentary and speculation out of articles. Meters (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Banedon,

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/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 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) 10:52, 14 March 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 your contributions to Invasion of the United States. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion of the United States. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 12 July 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 have closed your DRN request as not a topic for DRN. You were requesting a binding decision, and there is no consensus in the community for on the general question of whether examples may be listed. So my advice is to propose specific examples on the article talk page, Talk:Benevolent dictatorship, with specific sources. There may be consensus on one or another of the examples with sources. If discussion does not result in rough consensus, an RFC on specific examples would be in order. So that is my advice,to discuss specific examples with specific sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 27 September 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) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, why was the category for right wing populism undone for Najib Razak’s page? I believe he is regarded to be right wing, such as the party he is a member of, which is on the right of the spectrum, thus putting him in the right spectrum of politics. Firekong1 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no section in the article about him being right-wing, however. If he's regarded as right-wing, and if it's significant, then it should be discussed as such. Without such a section it looks inappropriate. You can also take this to the article's talk page, see what other people think. Banedon (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Should I mention this before adding any right wing categories to his page? Firekong1 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the article talk page. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]