User talk:QuicoleJR/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, QuicoleJR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Derek Bunch. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try 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. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets on Authors after Latin names[edit]

Please don't edit brackets, or parentheses, "just for consistency" on the author names on latin species names, they have meaning and are important. Simuliid talk 06:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Didn’t know. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Dojo[edit]

You know, you're not WRONG that the message went against WP rules, but honestly, I'd just leave old comments alone, haha. Like I said, not a big deal, just some sage wisdom. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter[edit]

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
  • Germany FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
  • United States TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
  • Byzantine Empire Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included Berkelland LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, New England Trainsandotherthings, England Lee Vilenski, Indonesia Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, Washington (state) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and Chicago PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand II of Spain[edit]

Hey, real quick just wanted to know what was wrong with the dab page I created for Ferdinand II of Spain? I'm sure I did something stupid as I often do, but I can't quite figure it out. Thanks, Estar8806 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand II already exists as a disambiguation page. This article is therefore unnecessary. Sorry. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. However, I would also point out that Ferdinand I and Ferdinand I of Spain also exist separately. Thanks for the quick response. Estar8806 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. After a little thinking, I decided to retract the speedy deletion. Sorry for the inconvenience. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No inconvenience and certainly no need for an apology. Glad we were able to sort this out. Estar8806 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Hot Springs[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you added a stub template to Baker Hot Springs, however the article was already assessed as a Start class. I went ahead and added more content and citations, but please make sure to check the article talk pages before adding a template, which has been removed. You can also of course improve/expand stubs and start articles to help build the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew about the talk page, I would have reassessed it to stub-class. I'm glad you added more content. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the content you added makes it start-class in my opinion. I use the stub/start requirements of WP:DESTUB50K. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @QuicoleJR, Every article has a talk page associated with it (except some very new articles).
Wikipedia:Content assessment is a much better, more detailed guide to article assessment, rather than the destub competition "challenge" which is a contest, not a guideline. The shortcut to the content assessment guidelines is: WP:ASSESS.
The article was indeed Start Class before your reassessment to a stub; additionally it had 6 citations (now has 8). Start class criteria, as defined by community consensus is:
An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. checkY; The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic checkY; Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic checkY;A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic checkY; Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article checkY.
Not all short articles are stubs, this one checked all five criteria from WP guidelines. If you are interested in de-stubbing, you could try adding sources and content to stubs you come across, rather than tagging them without doing the necessary work for quality article improvement. Hope that this is helpful information! Please don't hesitate to ask if you have questions. Happy editing. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I chose my stub-class system per Wikipedia:Stub#How big is too big?, which says that there is no set point where a stub stops being a stub, and that it is up to editor interpretation. Which guideline is to be followed? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! When I was a new editor I was directed to follow WP:ASSESS, which I find useful and detailed. I usually don't go by word count, but rather I look for elements in the article. In this case, it's a short article, however it has reliable, independent sources; a photo, an infobox, subheadings (sections); links to other articles as well as incoming links (not an orphan). I know it's confusing when different information is found in different places on WP, I guess that is just one of the hazards of a collaborative crowd-sourced encyclopedia. Cheers, Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Fischer (baseball)[edit]

In light of the additional sourcing and expansion, do you still believe the article should be deleted? Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I stopped monitoring that one after a few days, thanks for bringing this to my attention. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astaroth (Soulcalibur)[edit]

Question: Why withdraw the AfD? I think you were literally right on the money - despite being a well-written article in theory, it has nothing in the vein of WP:SIGCOV. It is a Good Article, but a non-notable one. I would have easily voted merge. Kung Fu Man was incorrect in their assertion that you should have taken it to GAR and BD2142 was also incorrect that "notability has already been vetted". Not so shockingly, the article became a GA in 2009 when standards were massively lower. Its GAR at Talk:Astaroth (Soulcalibur)/GA1 hardly involved any vetting besides a simple once-over, and Kung Fu Man was the original user who brought it to GA, also rather unsurprisingly. I suggest undoing the withdrawal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the rationale could stand to be a bit better. Like "all secondary sources found are trivial", because it demonstrably does have secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? I still think it should go. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also did that to Wikipedia :Articles for deletion/Nightwolf (2nd nomination) by reverting the page and afd log. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do it right? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: @GlatorNator: Un-withdrew. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Cruz[edit]

I wonder why you tagged most of the articles notability template except Soma Cruz. That alone is worst than Astaroth (which was recently merged now). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did not notice that one. Tagged it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: Why do so many of the older character GAs, like Astaroth and Soma Cruz, use quotes from the games as references? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because their standard that time was downgraded. I'll recommend sending it to afd, but be sure to provide better rationale if you will. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will pass for now, since I worry about the backlash if I nominate another GA anytime soon. Would support deletion if it was nominated, though. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I guess do the one that isn't a GA article with better rationale only if you will. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, you can cite dialogue from the game for the sake of explaining plot or other elements. Those references don't contribute to notability but let the reader understand more context of a statement within the article's main body, and shouldn't be used in the reception section except in very rare cases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronze Bow[edit]

Just a thought, but the info you added to San Rafael, California might be a better fit at San Rafael City Schools. Joyous! Noise! 18:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was considering nominating that for deletion. Unsourced and seems non-notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The school district? I mean, you can try, but school districts generally are perceived as notable at deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 19:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been nominated. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SimplyAsk[edit]

I'm wary of the optics of restoring my own CSD tag, but policy does explicitly say that G criteria apply to drafts. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 22:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will self-revert. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter)[edit]

Giving a head's up, but after burning the midnight oil I redid a reception section from complete scratch and cited appropriate sources. It should pass SIGCOV and WP:N, but given it was your nomination last time felt it suitable to let you know and make sure you're okay with the restoration.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me. Not perfect yet, but enough for me to hold off from voting in the AfD. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Taki[edit]

Why did you tag that for notability? The reception section's the one part of the article that's fine and establishes her notability quite well.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually a good question. I don't know what I was thinking. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. I think the only SC article with issues on notability that's left is Siegfried/Nightmare, but that's more a Siegfried problem.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Can you please stop snooping around my talk page and other articles I've edited? Thank you. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snooping around your talk page? I did not. It is not even in my watchlist. We just happen to have overlapping interests, and I went to your talk page to inform you about the minor edit policy. While there, I happened to participate in one other discussion, to inform you of precedent. The only reason I even went to your talk page in the first place is because you edited a page I like, and marked the wrong edit minor. This is not "disruptive" in the slightest. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, after removing my polite message informing you of the minor edit policy, you proceeded to incorrectly mark another edit as minor, before accusing me of snooping. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked?[edit]

@Hadal: I am not a vandalism-only account. I was trying to be good. What did I do wrong? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hadal: Also, why did you start at indefinite, and not leave a talk page message? While I'm not perfect, I don't think this counts as vandalism-only. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I had a few too many tabs open, and I mistook a content dispute for something else. I won't involve myself further. Carry on.--Hadal (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine. Thanks for unblocking me. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my brain fart with grace. It seems BrickMaster02 reported you at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and that's probably what tripped me up. I have to step away for other real-life demands anyway, but on the face of it I don't think this was a proper use of this noticeboard. I'll leave a note on their page. --Hadal (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter[edit]

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, Chicago PCN02WPS, and London AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content[edit]

I've finished it up. Have a look over, if ye would? I'll probably set up the next featured content soon. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks mostly good, but what does "binning-est" mean? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bin as in putting it in the basket? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 10:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. Makes sense now. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it does to others. Feel free to redo the poem if you have an idea. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 12:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Next featured content for the next one. I need to grab anything that passes in the next 6 hours or so, but, well.... that's not a big deal. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I will start on it soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear we're going to have to reshuffle things a bit: A few too many similar things right next to each other, and, of course, the "find the illustratable article" thing. If you see a good illustration, just move that article to the top and put the illustration in. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 17:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Participation at ANI/AN[edit]

Hello QuicoleJR, I've noticed you're making a lot of comments around noticeboards lately. I would recommend focusing less on getting as many comments in as many different sections as possible, and more just focus on one or two sections and taking the time to understand the issue before leaving a comment. Having a lot of comments from un-involved parties restating the obvious, or otherwise offering commentary that isn't entirely accurate or helpful, can make discussions difficult to follow and increase stress for participants. Additionally, Admin noticeboards aren't really the best place for new editors; having more experience with editing will give you some further insight into the best reponses and the context behind certain disputes. Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The drive-by comments are too much. I was not trying to "get as many comments in as many different sections as possible," and I personally don't see a problem, but I will admit dog-piling is never good. Not that I did that, anyway. Thank you for your polite message, and I will try to give more insightful and researched responses when I participate at ANI in the future. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say the same thing, after seeing this comment. Your enthusiasm is great; I suggest directing it in a more productive direction, like improving articles. (Here's something that would really benefit from more helping hands, for example.) --JBL (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kitaria Fables[edit]

Hi my friend, I hope you are fine. My point was that it looks odd (IMHO) to add the metacritic rating like that in the lead. Of course I saw it below, where it's correctly placed. Anyway, your call. I won't mind. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. I'm just not sure how else to summarize the reception in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandini[edit]

Hi Quicole - I would like to ask a favour. Can you sense check my rewrite on Bandini Automobili. I think it has enough to use as the basis to delete the Bandini s.p. 1000 article and a couple of other similar ones - Bandini GT and Bandini Saloncino. I checked out the origin to these and found all of them look suspiciously like they are directly connected to the Bandini family or museum. They are also direct translations of similarly unreferenced articles on the Italian Wiki. I plan to tidy up the Ilario Bandini article next. NealeWellington (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite a bit better, but it still sounds a bit promotional. For example, this paragraph:
Founded in 1946 in Bandini’s hometown Forlì, the first Bandini used a modified Fiat 1100 engine, the body was made from hand hammered aluminium and the chassis was a modified Fiat 1100 Bandini had managed to high from the Germans during World War 2. Following on from this Bandini made the 1100 Sport and the 1100 Siluro. It was the Siluro that gave them their first race victory in the Giro dell'Umbria (not to be confused with the bicycle race of the same name). The chassis for these were built from aviation-grade tubular steel.
That paragraph alone includes several instances of promotional wording, such as "aviation-grade", "managed to high from", etc. The article has certainly been improved, I'm just saying it still needs a lot of work. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I see a couple of other editors have joined in so hopefully we can get it to more encyclopedic NealeWellington (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Jack345110 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for being the 6th person to sign my guestbook. You are in the top 10!!!!. Jack345110 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

refactor thing[edit]

[1] lol GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category additions[edit]

It's generally best to not add extremely broad categories like ones about male/female video game characters to redirects, as this can lead to redirects bloating a category and giving a wrong sense of scope.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. I still plan on adding focused categories, but I can see why the male/female ones shouldn't be used. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Washington state interest[edit]

Hey QuicoleJR,

If you are planning on editing on rural Washington, such as towns or cities, I would recommend that communities in Eastern WA, especially the NE and SE corners could use a good amount of help - not to presume what you want to do - but I'd be happy to see some fresh editors in WA state regardless of where your interests take you.

Oh, and thanks for the cookie. Good thing my blood sugar numbers are good. See you around! Shortiefourten (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to try and help you out for a bit when time allows. For example, adding sources to unsourced bits. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The tags and unsourced stuff from around SW WA are mostly pre-me (the Winlock, Washington egg and infra sections has been that way for who knows how long!) and I tend to just leave 'em until I find something (if it even interests me) during my edits. But if you got the time that I don't, let's do this! It'll be awesome to work with you.
Shortiefourten (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter[edit]

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Teaches Typing 2[edit]

Hi! Was wondering can you help expand the Mario Teaches Typing 2 article? via the existing sources. Timur9008 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sequel isn't notable, but I can try to help with the original. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed you managed to recreate the sequel article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more surprised I found 14 sources for the original. I will keep looking for more sources for the sequel. Timur9008 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Chomp[edit]

I was going to consider redirecting it to the parent article,a s I feel the reception is just far too weak on its own. But I noticed you'd been working on it a little last month too. Do you feel it meets notability, or would be better redirected for now?-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it appears to fail notability, although BOLDly redirecting it is very likely to be contested. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll at least try it for now. I would rather avoid a AfD in case somehow later it does get notable coverage, as smaller subjects like these tend to suffer the worst from those.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Knight[edit]

It seems like you are a Kirby fan or something, but have you got some sources for Meta Knight for its notability. If not, then it might be send off to AfD soon by editors. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article already proves his notability, but I found a few more sources on the web. I even found this source on Google Scholar. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Meta Knight[edit]

Meta Knight has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Recent revert[edit]

The article in question, as well as Laura Bow, were reverted by an IP who was also the sockpuppet of a banned user who keeps coming back through various IPs/socks. While I get your good intentions there, the policy is citing "if editors cannot agree" and pretty sure there's no other party involved in this particular mess. Per WP:BLAR, a revert does not mean "it must automatically go through AfD now to proceed".-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol invitation[edit]

Hello, QuicoleJR.
  • The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation! QuicoleJR (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Carmel Valley Historical Society[edit]

@QuicoleJR: I understand you are interested in California History. Please check out the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Valley Historical Society and add your 2 cents to keep the article. I think the article has merit and should not be deleted. Thanks! Greg Henderson (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the notification, but isn't this canvassing? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top Rank Tennis[edit]

Hi! Why did you put a notability tag on Top Rank Tennis? Timur9008 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the template and thought the two prose reviews at the time were the only ones. You can remove the tag if you want. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Timur9008 (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon hatnote[edit]

Hi QuicoleJR, concerning the Pokémon hatnote, could you point me to the discussion where consensus was established? I'd be happy to try and change the consensus.

I find "This article only covers the basics of Pokémon species. For detailed in-universe information, please refer to dedicated wikis on the subject."unnecessary and ridiculous. I haven't seen any hatnote like that on any articles that discuss other franchises or intellectual property. We don't randomly point to other wikis, Fandom pages or fansites for other information. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually could not find a discussion about it. Feel free to remove it from all of the lists, but don't be surprised if someone else reverts you. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter[edit]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
  • Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
  • Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC) (Signed on behalf of the bot so this archives properly)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi QuicoleJR. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Steps such as checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline are mandatory and will take a few minutes per article.
  • Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any required steps.
  • Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Hello, thanks for reviewing all of my new cephalopod redirects :D Kravk (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter[edit]

Hello QuicoleJR,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vitality of The Jetsons[edit]

The V5 discussion was closed before I could reply, unfortunatley. See https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/jetsons_the for start. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive[edit]

Hello QuicoleJR:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2700 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Points award[edit]

The Invisible Barnstar
This award is given to QuicoleJR for collecting more than 5 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, Delaware BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

  • Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
  • Delaware BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
  • Berkelland LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
  • Ukraine Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi QuicoleJR. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
  • Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
  • Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bling, bling![edit]

Vital Barnstar
For your efforts on the Vital Articles Project, especially the African cities proposals. Also, no way you're a Start-Class user! You need to update that :)
Thank you! QuicoleJR (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could promote you to Good Editor :) You might even make Featured Editor one day — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message[edit]

Hello QuicoleJR. Where are are you my friend? I had texted you in other talk pages too before texting here. Please do help me. This time I will never retry if I get blocked in texting again. I am fed up QuicoleJR. Why don't you understand? Please do reply before it gets deleted like always. Free your time for me if you're busy,I'll help you make up in your projects completions once I am stable, believe me. 2409:4081:AD85:8FF7:0:0:CC4A:B00A (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should probably stop changing Wikipedia. It does not seem to be good for you. I think you would be happier if you did other things. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR. I want to be happy. Being happier has never been my goal and also I can't shift to happier state of being right from the worst directly which is what I am. Give me examples of other things, I will do them just becoz you recommended me to do them happily. I said "happily" for you. 2409:4081:AD85:8FF7:0:0:CC4A:B00A (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be happy, you should probably stop editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is clearly making you unhappy. You should find another hobby, like playing video games or reading. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MONCH[edit]

Xnyarla has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

<3 Xnyarla (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup![edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Welcome to the drive![edit]

Welcome, welcome, welcome QuicoleJR! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter[edit]

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, here[edit]

Alt text The Good JAlt textb! Award
For finding most of my guestbooks. Panini! • 🥪 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]
@Panini!: Most?! QuicoleJR (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
;) Panini! • 🥪 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter[edit]

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuicoleJR/Archive_1&oldid=1225170073"