governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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:
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there! I wanted to ask what you think of giving me an additional few hundred words on my AE statement. Given the large number of allegations made, including new allegations introduced by BilledMammal which I disagree with, I do not think I can manage with the 500 word limit. JDiala (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In fact, after some thought, I will voluntarily withdraw this request. I don't expect the additional words to make a decisive difference, and I think the way the 500-limit is set up is very logical to avoid excessive verbosity by all parties. Thank you for your feedback on the AE. JDiala (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Please note for the future, word extensions should be requested on the AE thread itself. That keeps everything together in one place and improves transparency. The WordsmithTalk to me00:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for contributing to the AE.
Would you mind telling me which are malformed for you? Mobile diffs can be a bit difficult, I’m happy to try and fix them. FortunateSons (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Diffs 2 and 7 seem to link to threads that were deleted or archived, rather than the archived discussion or the actual diff. The mobile site and Minerva skin can be really finicky for editing, especially for getting diffs. I'm usually on desktop, but for those times when I'm using a phone or tablet for editing I override the mobile skin from my Preferences. Monobook is actually good and readable even on a cell phone. Not as good as it is on desktop, but still surprising for a skin that's older than smartphones. The WordsmithTalk to me00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey! Tamzin and I were in the process of working on a close of part 2, but it seems like you've overwritten our tag here. If you'd like, you're welcome to join us and we can all close both parts 2 and 3 within a day or two. Let me know, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I think that was an edit conflict because I started reading and marking it as Closing then got distracted. Sure, I'm happy to work on a joint close with the both of you. The WordsmithTalk to me06:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Closer's Barnstar
For your diplomacy and effort in taking the lead to close the ADL RfC, as well as collaboration with others to achieve this. CNC (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
A rouge TARDIS (or the closest thing I could find on Commons), for having made a closure so Rouge that its effects travelled through time and were being challenged before you even issued it. . . . But to be serious, I appreciate that you undertook to close, and closed so thoughtfully, such a large and complex discussion even as it was getting international attention and pushback. Someone had to do it; the discussion was open for so long as to suggest no-one wanted to do it; I appreciate you doing it. -sche (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Hobbit sounds like a great palate cleanser! I was reading his Sea-Bell the other day and learning about the neat words Tolkien coined or resurrected in that and other writings (which might interest you, as a wordsmith, if you don't know them already), like ruel-bone and wikt:eucatastrophe. :o -sche (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jews should get to define antisemitism — not racist narcissists who are offended that the vast majority of Jews in the world say that antizionism is almost always antisemitism.
And to do it at a time when antisemitism has enflamed by antisemitism is a real dirtbag move.
Latest comment: 18 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have a question for you regarding the ADL RfC close. I think that's a good close and I'm not challenging it by any means, but merely trying to further my understanding of policy. (As you can see my !vote aligns with your closure).
I understand your initial close except the part about why the fact that ADL is an advocacy group is relevant, and how do we define "advocacy" in contrast to "bias" and "conflict of interest"? Advocacy groups are absolutely biased, but that doesn't make a source unreliable. Is it that being an advocacy group creates a type of conflict of interest? Or is there another reason why being an advocacy group is a detriment to one's reliability? VR(Please ping on reply)18:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Being an advocacy group isn't necessarily disqualifying (since they also publish research and factual claims), but it is something that should be considered when citing statements of fact as opposed to WP:RSOPINION. In this case, consensus was that the pro-Israel advocacy led to the ADL redefining pro-Palestinian demonstrations as antisemitism, making their statistics on antisemitic incidents in the context of Israel/Palestine not just biased but misleading or false. In other words, it isn't necessarily the bias but the inaccurate statements caused by that bias. The WordsmithTalk to me23:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Admin's Barnstar
I stated in the discussion below the vote that I felt quite bad for whichever poor admin got tasked with closing the ADL RfC - props for being one of the ones to do so! TheKip(contribs)21:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion
You've just protected an article, reverting my edit to it and claiming that there is a consensus to include an attempt at a joke in the article. No such consensus exists. If you believe that somewhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines there is a consensus that a joke relating to the title of a page is valid encyclopaedic content, do point it out to me.
Additionally, I see that you spammed my talk page with a warning template, but did not do the same to the person who was reverting my edit. Why? 151.71.237.22 (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You were engaged in an edit war and reverted the same content three times in a very short period. EEng reverted twice, to restore the stable version of the article content which has been discussed multiple times on the talkpage. If you believe the content should be changed, the right way is to follow WP:BRD and discuss it on the talkpage rather than repeatedly reverting. The WordsmithTalk to me06:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, I reverted twice; once last night, once this morning. EEng reverted twice last night. Even if your alternative history were true, it would not explained why you spammed me alone with warnings. And you did not identify any part of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that supports the idea of user jokes as valid encyclopaedic content. 151.71.237.22 (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did see that and I considered a longer semi. I only shortened it because I was surprised to see the page had never been protected before, so jumping straight to 6+ months might be overkill for a first protection. If I see more IP disruption or block evasion when it expires, I'd be fine with going long term. Or if you catch it before me, you can always post here to let me know and I'll have enough evidence to justify a long or indefinite protection. The WordsmithTalk to me17:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It's very much immaterial in any case, but was there a procedural reason why the protection level on Boxer Rebellion was increased? Admittedly, there's a pang of shame that it was partially my fault—twasn't my best day at the office. Cheers! Remsense诉20:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't anything to do with you–I was working on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milktaco and that was one of the articles heavily edited by a suspected sock. I couldn't prove it was sockpuppetry, but looking over the recent edit history I saw tons of confirmed sockpuppetry, vandalism and otherwise disruptive edits from IPs and new accounts along with very little productive editing from IPs. Semiprotection should hopefully tamp down on that. The WordsmithTalk to me21:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
You said to post on your talk page for info. I'm open to any suggestions or guidance you might provide. The time which I can spend doing stuff on Wikipedia isn't very large and I've been doing most of my reading (and some replying) from my phone. When I'm at my PC, I also just use my phone for internet. While it's reliable the speed isn't great and I do not have a lot of data so I do have those limitations.
Sure no problem, sorry I was away for a holiday so I'm just getting back to Wikipedia now. WP:TASKS has a pretty solid overview of the routine things that need to be done. Given the limitations you mentioned, Categorization might be a good one to dive into. It's important but doesn't require much bandwidth/data or time commitment. Answering edit requests is another good one, or fact checking depending on where your interests lie. WP:XFD could be another place to get involved since you're already familiar with our content guidelines, and they need more participants desperately. Wikipedia:Community portal/Open tasks is also a good place to go if you have a few minutes and want to tackle something quickly. The WordsmithTalk to me17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)