Removal of In Other Media edit

edit

Hi, I added a line on Hadouken - Wikipedia

It had a brief description and a link, specifically about the web comic "Oglaf," both of which were removed. Is the issue the link itself, because of the adult nature of the comic? The info appears to be no less notable than some of the other references. Would it be permitted without the link?

Thank you. Grendel205 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi - the adult nature isn't strictly an issue, Wikipedia isn't age restricted. It being external link is bad, but not that bad (it can just be turned into a citation). The problem is that it's not notable. I agree that it is not less notable than what is already there - but the problem is that that stuff isn't notable either - there's a header at the top of that section that points out this pre-existing problem: "This section may contain irrelevant references to popular culture. Please remove the content or add citations to reliable and independent sources." - Check out the popular culture link, which specifies the rough guidelines for what really should and shouldn't be in the "In popular culture" sections. Really, the whole "Hadouken in popular culture" needs a clearout, which I'll do now. BugGhost🪲👻 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand now, thanks. Admittedly, I was going by what was already there. And I had no idea what "hadouken" was until I saw the strip and then needed to look it up, which took me right to this page. At least I finally understand the joke! Grendel205 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries - the "in popular culture" sections are always a bit confusing about what counts as notable or not. You haven't done anything wrong and you were trying to help the article, so it's all good :) Welcome to Wikipedia by the way! BugGhost🪲👻 13:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar

edit
  The Special Barnstar
Often when I'm on WP, I go to autopilot. I appreciate your message on my talk page, because I reported an account to AIV when I probably didn't need to, and I wanted to acknowledge your effort to reel me in, there. I hope to continue seeing you around! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the barnstar (my first!) BugGhost🦗👻 08:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course! It's important to recognize editors who help others, and you were right about potentially biting a new user. In that particular case, while the CSD's were appropriate, sending to AIV wasn't, so I'm grateful that you called me on that! retaining new editors is something I've tried to emphasize recently and it's easy to forget that, especially when I'm on autopilot :) SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 25

edit

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

edit
Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
 
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

edit

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
  • The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update

edit

Hello BugGhost - in my admin election initial answer to questions, I have updated my answer to Q1, and hence your voter guide is no longer accurate. Please see Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Starship.paint. Hope that you will be able to update your voter guide. Thanks! starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Starship, thanks for letting me know - I've struck the old text and added a note that the answer is now updated. Good luck in the election! BugGhost🦗👻 15:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much BugGhost. I appreciate it! starship.paint (talk / cont) 23:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

edit

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

November 2024

edit

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits

edit

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Only report accounts with edits and do not report those with no edits in the preceding 2 weeks. Do not report a user that has not edited or has not edited in the preceding 2 weeks, except for an instance of an egregious name violation. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations such as names of organizations or products need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense, apologies for the bad report and thanks for the explanation. Good luck in the election by the way! BugGhost🦗👻 20:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've kind of made it my mission to educate users on howand when to report at UAA, this is a common enough error that I made a custom template after typing the same two paragraphs over and over again, so it's not a huge deal.
And thanks for your support. I don't really know how good my chances are, but there was a pretty good slate running so we'll probably be ok either way. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I figured it was a custom template (the twinkle tag in the edit history gave it away), still helpful nonetheless. I don't know how the results will come out either but I think you're one of the stronger candidates. BugGhost🦗👻 01:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply