User talk:Moabdave/Archive 6

mountain meadows editing

just want them to tell the truth about the mormons killing all those people at mountain meadows.

it was whitewashed in 2004 due to romneys presidential run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.249.159 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory falls apart as the lead changes you are protesting were made in 2012, not 2004. Furthermore, Romney's runs were in 2008 and 2012. As noted in the linked discussion, I was involved in that discussion, and I assure you I have no interest in giving the Mormon church PR, as my edit history can attest. So accusing me of being part of a conspiracy won't get you very far. May I instead suggest you address the points made in the debate if you feel the lead should be changed. Dave (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

conspiracy theory oh please. I did not accuse you so settle down and Romney ran for president as soon as bush started his 2nd term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.249.159 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

roadtraffic-technology.com blacklist

Hi I saw your post on Talk:Cyberpower678 because this URL is blacklisted on another page (Jiaozhou Bay Bridge) and I was wondering you mentioned "I see the investigation is ongoing" .. do you know where that is? -- GreenC 16:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently all sites owned by "Kable", a UK based aggregater site have been blacklisted, including this one. The discussion is going in at [1], but you have to scroll down a bit. It seems like the pendulum swung too far on this one. Dave (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four Corners
Thank you for quality articles on the Four Corners region, such as Thistle, Utah, and the "cursed" U.S. Route 491, actually visiting the sites to take pictures, and for helpful edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 458th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Three years ago you were recipient no. 458 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You're too kind Gerda, thanks. Dave (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's U.S. Route 50 in Nevada

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Interstate 70 in Colorado, about "easily one of the more notable highways in the U.S., due to the engineering required to build it"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all your kind words. I'm not as active as I used to be, but I'm trying to come back. Dave (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

replied to your comment

on my talk page Famartin (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 8

Hey! Hope all is well. If you get a chance, could you take a look at I-8? It's at ACR right now, but if you don't have time for a full review, that's okay. It's the most complex article I've done, so I'm a bit unsure about it. --Rschen7754 05:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to get to it this week. Thanks for the heads up. Dave (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dotsero, Colorado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tennessee Pass. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet another User:Link Smurf sock

Another eolgi User:Core72 Meters (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks got it. Sigh, this guy is persistant, I'll give him that.Dave (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Street car. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Moabdave. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

First Transcontinental Railroad

Hi, your input on the editorial quality of the First Transcontinental Railroad article which you contributed to in the past is needed here. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Moabdave.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Moabdave. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Utah Southern Railroad (1871–81), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Utah Central Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1939 City of San Francisco Derailment

Hello! Your submission of 1939 City of San Francisco Derailment at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SounderBruce 06:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have tried to abbreviate the hook and caption without losing meaning.Dave (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Done, thank you. Dave (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 510 Arizona

Hi Moabdave, you recently left a message on my talk page regarding to I-510 ever being sighed, and did I have further information. Unfortunately, I do not. I did not add the part of I-510 formally existing on State Route 51 article, I only added the info box. If you feel it never existed you can remove I-510 designation off the article.Geography240 (talk) 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was just curious. It's been a problem with that article ever since I joined Wikipedia, and has been removed and re-added several times. I was hoping you had a source that helped clear things up so the issue could be resolved for once and for all.Dave (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you.Geography240 (talk) 22 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 1939 City of San Francisco derailment

On 4 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1939 City of San Francisco derailment, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite years of investigation and a manhunt, the 1939 City of San Francisco derailment remains unsolved? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1939 City of San Francisco derailment), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Moabdave. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Route 50 in Nevada scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that U.S. Route 50 in Nevada has been scheduled as today's featured article for 8 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 8, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The article went through the FA process quite a while ago, It probably does need fixes. I'll start going through it.Dave (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for List of state highways in Utah

An article that you have been involved with (List of state highways in Utah) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (List of former state highways in Utah). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the talk page. Thank you. BRES2773 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Moabdave. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Happy New Year Dave (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moabdave. You have new messages at Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Message added 20:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you had commented previously on the article's talkpage, thought you might be interested in the current discussion. Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Finally finished up with my CITEREF/Harvnb cleanup on Mountain Meadows Massacre. The present result is not perfect but a far sight better than the previous mangled-refs version. What happened... eons ago in Wikipedia-time (2010 to the outside world) an editor parked an enormous amount of "Harvnb" style cites/references - 92 in all within the article and much of that content remained unused in the intervening years. For instance, most of the 13 Brigham Young/"Discourses" Harvnb cites, etc., etc. - with some being commented out or just sitting there like lumps in the middle of the text...) Anyway, I'm pretty sure there are still some stray Harvnb's but for the most part the major issues have been fixed. Maybe I'll come back to it at some point and finish cleaning-up & all the editing niceties. Taking a break from the "Massacre" for a while. Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

And the present panorama pic looks much better. Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

US 50 Bus. in Carson City

Hi Dave. I noticed you reverted some IP edits about US 50 Business in Carson City. Just to let you know, NDOT did ask for and receive AASHTO approval for a US 50 Business designation on William St/old SR 530 back in spring 2009 (see WP:USRD/AASHTO). However, it's never seen any evidence that this was signed in the field other than the one sign the IP editor found in Street View—and I don't recall having ever seen that sign in person prior to its removal. Based on this, I agree with removing the mention in adjacent articles—the SR 530 article could potentially mention something about the route if the point gets pressed. -- LJ ↗ 14:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ljthefro:, Thanks for that. If I need to eat crow so be it. What I can say is currently there is no signage for US 50 Business anywhere anymore. I do recall the sign on Google Street view the IP editor references, but it wasn't there for long. (note the IP editor had to use the historical view to find it. It's not there anymore) It also used a non-standard font that led me to believe the city put it up. The signage for US-395 Business is all but gone. It's still signed at the I-580 exits on the ends of town, but all signage downtown is gone. Dave (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As a followup, during the redo's of the major intersections guide for the I-580 re-alignments, it looks like all links to SR 530 were eliminated. I understand why, but as all of those tables mention William Street by name, and an article exists for William Street (under the SR 530 title) I re-added them. Let me know if you think that should be undone, or just do it. Dave (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

City of San Francisco train wreck

You're right, it was here (40.57573, -116.29903). Tom (talk)

Nevada business routes

Hi Dave. Thanks for that edit on I-80 NV article. But I saw in your edit reason ("Per the SMBook (NDOT reference used throughout this article) there is no US95 Business. As of the 2019 edition the only remaining US BUS route in Nevada is US93BUS inBoulder City") and wanted to clarify it. There are still a few recognized US Business routes in Nevada, which are signed from freeways and at varying degrees along their surface routes. The other routes include US 95 BUS in Las Vegas (cataloged as SR 599), US 395 BUS in Carson City (now locally maintained), and US 395 BUS in Reno (partially SR 430, partially US 395 ALT, and partially locally maintained). US 93 Business in Boulder City is unique in that it's a state-maintained business route cataloged as a US business route number—it seems NDOT disregarded the former practice of giving a separate state highway number to state-maintained business routes (I expected NDOT to catalog the Boulder City route as an extension of SR 172, another SR 17x, or use/revive a low 500 number). It's similar to how there are several signed I-80 BUS loops in Nevada, but you won't find I-80 BUS in the SMH book—any state-maintained portions of these I-80 BUS loops are cataloged by their SR or FR number. -- LJ ↗ 15:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. It sounds like I did the right thing, but for the wrong reason. Glad you were there to fix it. I've been that way many times, including within the past 3 months. And if US-95 Business is signed, it's a brand new development. Dave (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buford, Wyoming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overland Route. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uinta Basin Rail

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uinta Basin Rail you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vincent60030 -- Vincent60030 (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in Colorado

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 1, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uinta Basin Rail

The article Uinta Basin Rail you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uinta Basin Rail for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vincent60030 -- Vincent60030 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Uinta Basin Rail

On 11 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uinta Basin Rail, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some of the proposed routes for the current effort to build a Uinta Basin Rail line are based on routes surveyed more than 100 years ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uinta Basin Rail. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Uinta Basin Rail), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Is U.S. Route 395 a primary route?🤔

Hey Dave, is U.S. Route 395 a primary route? Is that route popular? Not sure about that. I’ve seen people drive that highway many times. Please reply if I’m wrong. Oh, and I forgot, it existed in the U.S. route system.

Officially, per the numbering guidelines set by AASHTO for U.S. Highways, U.S. Route 395 is a spur of U.S. Route 95, not a primary route. That may seem strange to you, and it is. However, remember the US Highway system was formed in the 1920s, so it's almost a 100 year old system. This country has evolved a lot over the years, and some highways have gained importance, while others have lost importance in those 100 years. Dave (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nevada Subdivision

Is there any specific reason(s) you marked the page as unreviewed and there was something I missed, or perhaps it was accidental? It appears that you had re-reviewed it shortly after. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 20:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13:It was accidental. My apologies. Dave (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Moabdave: That's what I assumed, no worries. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 20:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Weso, Nevada

Thank you very much for correcting my lead section error on Weso, Nevada. I'm surprised it stayed there for that long without me correcting it. I forgot to remove it when I was copying the infobox from Borax, Nevada for me to work on and I guess I brought the lead from there with me. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I don't know how many times I've read an article I used to work on years ago and said "what idiot put all this crap into the article?", only to check the history and find out it was me, and the article had that crap in it from day one. It happens. Cheers Dave (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Moabdave! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in Colorado at WP:URFA/2020

You are invited to URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, Interstate 70 in Colorado, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe it meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020A. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment, but I'm unsure how to process it. If you enter just a "Satisfactory", followed by the date, I can move it to "FAR not needed". You didn't actually say Satisfactory, and per the instructions, we like to keep it very short (to minimize page length). Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Crescent Junction, Utah for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crescent Junction, Utah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent Junction, Utah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

Mangoe (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of U.S. Highways in Utah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castle Gate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Miner's spade marker article

If you can find the CHPW journal article that you saw about the miner's spade identification which you mentioned at Talk:California State Route 49, please do. I don't know if you saw my recent comment at Talk:List of state highways in California#Spade vs. acorn and subsequent alteration to the infobox, but that article would help. You probably know your way around the journal better anyway – frankly, I found the above info via a 1998 Usenet message (#12) that I recently rediscovered.

Incidentally, the HMDB page mentioned on the SR 49 talk page is not permissible since the quote in question is not the same as the marker legend, which itself isn't really helpful in said context.

Mapsax (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mapsax: Page 11 ,left column, of this issue [2] This is a tough one for me. I fully grant you are correct. I have never seen a source explicitly say SR 49 was so numbered for the 49ers. But yet there are soooooo many articles that use SR 49 and the 49ers in the same sentence, that I honestly don't see how it could be a co-incidence. But if we can't find a source, we can't find a source. Sigh. Dave (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the article link. See what I've done with the infobox. Mapsax (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The compromise that you did on the SR 49 article is probably the best that we can get at this point. It's so tantalizingly close to saying 49 = 1849, but no. (I got rid of some line breaks to keep the text in a single block). I didn't change this, but I prefer to use the Internet Archive to cite the CHPW journal because you can isolate individual pages and not make anyone who wants to review the cite download a multi-page .pdf, but a source is a source. (Of course, of course.) Mapsax (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mapsax: agree that Internet Archive would be better for those reasons. What would be even better yet might be to create a source-specific template, like we did with {{AASHTO minutes}}. In time, we may be transcribing CHPW to Wikisource, meaning we could flip links to individual issues to point to the Wikisource copies over the Internet Archive copies if desired just by editing the template and not be forced to edit individual Wikipedia articles. One issue is done on Wikisource, and it's a time-consuming process, but very worthwhile if we made it a priority at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting POV. As mine is exactly the opposite. I'd much rather download a PDF and search in any one of a number of very well done PDF viewers, than deal with some javascript applet that may or may not be easy to navigate for someone that is as clumsy as I am. But again, as long as it's documented, that's what counts. Dave (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has a download link and various search tools. It also works on slower connections without requiring a reader to download the full file to view. Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway

Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of California State Route 88

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article California State Route 88 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Question from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources#Alternative proposal 1 comments

I believe you missed this question, which asked:

When you say “asked for opinions on the re-word privately” can you explain what forum you asked in, and which editors you asked/are members of that forum?

Would you also be willing to post any discussions you had there, so that the rest of us can understand the full background to this proposal?

And was in response to part of your proceeding comment, which said:

This specific wording came from Rschen7754, who has a number of essays, rants, and questions on this subject in his userspace. I reworded proposal1, and asked for opinions on the re-word privately. But the changes were not discussed publicly.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not respond to this request because I do not believe it is reasonable. I stand by the answer previously given, and believe it is all that needs to be said. Regardless, I'm not comfortable responding to such a request. From my limited understanding of privacy law, this may be an illegal request, as complying may run afoul with privacy laws of jurisdictions that have 2-party/all-party consent provisions which include, or courts have interpreted to include, electronic communications. Dave (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Dave, ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, timing is perfect for some good morning cheer. Cheers to you as well.Dave (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of California State Route 88

The article California State Route 88 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:California State Route 88 for comments about the article, and Talk:California State Route 88/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:No original research. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. If you have an issue with an editors conduct bring it up, with evidence, either with them or at ANI. Casting aspersions without evidence, and at other forums, is unacceptable, and it is particularly unacceptable to compare an editors conduct to campaigns like Stop the Steal.

Please strike your comment. BilledMammal (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

FA renomination

Hello, I've renominated Interstate 40 in Tennessee as an FA candidate again after addressing the remaining outlying comments that I was unable to get to before the first nomination was archived. I've also made a few additional recommended improvements. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Update - I've responded to your additional comments at the FAC, and thought I might let you know that they are threatening to archive it again in the next few days if it doesn't pick up a support, if you didn't already know about that. I'm not trying to pressure you, but I'm confident that the article isn't far away from passing. You actually already seemed to indicate that already. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is all but the inevitable outcome at this point. The lone vote after 3 weeks is a struck oppose. I doubt that vote will be given any kind of serious consideration. I see that vote was based on a desire to make a point, and not based on any actual reading of the article. But still, that leaves the article 3 weeks without a support vote. Even if myself and EpicGenius voted support right now, it's still not enough to pass. Given I found sourcing issues with my most recent read, I can't in good faith vote support just yet. However, as all problems I've found so far are minor, I have no doubt this article is close to Featured Article status. Months ago I promised I would review your article, and I will finish my review regardless of the outcome of this FAC, a promise is a promise. I frankly wish you had asked me to start reviewing the article outside of FAC, and waited until that review was finished before renominating it. That way I could have voted "support-I recently reviewed this article" and hopefully inspired others to review it. Reviewing this article will take time, it's a Loooonnnnng article. Compared to my FAC nominations, its' easily 3x my FAC nominations for similar length highways: Interstate 70 in Colorado, Interstate 70 in Utah and U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. I can only review a chunk at a time on an article this long. Reviewing is not one of my talents, but you have to give reviews to receive reviews. But again, I will keep my promise and finish my review of this article regardless if the FAC times out or not. Best of luck.Dave (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure of what sourcing issues you are referring to, as I have tried to ensure that everything in this article is thoroughly sourced. But I realize now that I should have asked you and others to review before renominating. After this, I'm not going to keep renominating this article. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It was the personal website, which again you fixed. FYI. I'm reviewing more of the article as I type this. I hope you're not dispirited about this. I'd hate to lose yet another roads editor (we've lost so many as the Wikipedia politics get worse every year). I'd say please don't take it personally. IMHO, the article is very thorough, but it is very long, that will put some people off. Then the timing kinda sucks. Your nomination hit right as the fighting about maps, and especially Google maps started. That undoubtedly also has some people scared off until the dust settles and we know how this will play out. Dave (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have also waited until the RfC was closed. Do you know of anyone who would be willing to copyedit? It appears GOCE requests are taking months to pick up reviewers now. I don't plan to quit editing road articles, and actually have some others that I am currently working to get to GA status, as well as some pending nominations. While I think some of the objections to interpreting maps at the RfC went too far, I am pleased that the overall outcome held that visual interpretations of maps does not always constitute OR. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:GOCE where the editors who are really good at copy-editing hang out. However, there are other venues where you can ask for help. WP:Peer Review is more of a quid-pro-quo system of I'll review yours if you review mine, and the reviewer is likely mostly doing it for that quid-pro-quo. Still I've gotten good reviews there. Another place to consider is WP:USRD/ACR. That's an internal process within the US Roads Wikiproject. It's basically their "Featured Article pre-nomination prep area". That's both good and bad. Ideally you'd like an article reviewed by both a fellow road nerd and someone with more general interests, but the good news is because it is internal to the roadgeek project, it's more sympathetic and slower paced than FAC is. Dave (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

They've archived it again. This is staring to get ridiculous; they've kept plenty of FACs open longer than this. I don't get the rush. That being said, I may try one more time, but I'm starting to think I'm promoting a lost cause. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. To be fair I think the FAC nomination was a bit premature. I usually try to have 4 reviews by peers before entering the lions den of FAC. I think that would have benefited this article too. However, that only explains half of why your article was struggling to get reviews. There is also some unfortunate politics. There has always been a divide between those that think Wikipedia should mirror what the college of humanities at an ivy league school would produce, and, those in the trenches who write articles that are read and used by the average reader. But sadly, the longstanding traditions of how those two groups navigated around each other and even managed to relatively peacefully co-exist seem to be failing now. I have my own theories about why that is, and what's next for Wikipedia. However, those are better discussed over a beer at a bowling alley than here. Dave (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

FA opinion

Hello, I would like to try one more time to get Interstate 40 in Tennessee to FA status. Since the last review I have made a few improvements. But I was wondering, if I were to nominate right now, would you support the article in its current form? Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Update - the article has just received a GOCE copyedit. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Having received a thorough copyedit, I've decided to try one more time. Hopefully I can finally get it on the main page this time. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) w

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Following up something you said in a closed thread

I'm following up here because the conversation you mentioned this in is now closed. I hope that's the right thing to do? I keep getting wiki etiquette wrong lately.

I hope I've got the right user, were you "Dave" in the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents?

You mentioned something about a disruptive editor and I think the user who was being discussed is trying to do something similar to what you described on another page.

Two pages were merged by consensus serveal months ago (I'll try to find a link to that discussion), which that user disagreed with, and since then they seem to have been persistently removing material relating to the broader topic that the smaller pages got merged into.

They point to WP:ONUS which in each individual case would be justified, but they remove so much that they make properly discussing it unachievable. They often don't raise a discussion on the talk page, and when they do I've almost never seen more than one person agrees that the material needed to be removed.

They also devise metrics of what counts as notable or relevant, which on the surface sound reasonable, but which seem to be having the cumulative effect of introducing some fairly severe bias to the page, skewing towards the narrower page that got merged into the broader topic.

I think a lot of potentially valuable contributers have given up editing the page, because that one user makes it feel rather futile to add anything.

I can't quite fathom their agenda, I initially presumed it was political, but now I'm really not sure.

Irtapil (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) edited a bit Irtapil (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The thread was closed as no consensus for any sanction. So weather you or I think their should have been is now irrelevant. If you want to start another thread at WP:ANI or WP:RFAR or wherever, that's your choice. I normally try to avoid drama on here. All I did was reply to someone else's battle at ANI with my own experience. Even that was against my better judgement. Wikipedia is run, and survives by volunteer labor. While the result is amazing, the downside is that everybody participates with their own vision of what Wikipedia should be, and that creates a lot of conflict. It's not like a paid job where you participate with the expectation that it is your boss's vision that will win, not yours. So that's an unfortunate consequence, you need thick skin to work here. However, I lament that things seem to be getting worse, not better. Many of WMF's efforts to make this a more hospitable place to work seem to have backfired. Que sera sera. Good luck and all the best, Dave (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat regretting replying to that thread myself. Yours seems like a good philosophy.

What do got mean by "Many of WMF's efforts to make this a more hospitable place to work seem to have backfired"? though if you don't want to elaborate, that's ok.

Thanks for the reply.

Irtapil (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The WMF has a publicly stated goal of recruiting more authors that are female and/or from the developing world. However, the actual result of several initiatives have done just the opposite, by making the editing environment more hostile to new editors who don't know the rules. Nowadays we somehow expect a new editor to have a dozen policies plus the manual of style memorized by their 2nd edit. Ten years ago, most people start editing wikipedia because "hey this article doesn't mention x. Maybe I can add that" or "Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Y, maybe I could write one." While those edits rarely complied with policy or the manual of style, they were usually at least tolerated as "it is an improvement." Such editors were usually watched to see if their editing improved or not before any sanctions were issued. Today, a new editor cannot even create a new article, that ability has been completely revoked. Now they have to go through the bureaucratic AFC and/or NPP processes, which can take months and the submission rejected for the flimsiest of reasons. Also, the culture now seems to reward not the people who make improvements to articles, but those who spray paint articles with big orange tags that all in one form or another say the same thing, "the people who wrote this article are idiots, but fear not, I put this big orange tag on it to save you from yourself." IMHO we need to get back to incentivizing article improvement, not article tag warfare. Dave (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hey this article doesn't mention x. Maybe I can add that" Now anyone doing that casually is completely wasting their time, that stuff gets instantly deleted pending discussions, and nobody will bother fighting for something added by an anonymous IP addressed account? Actually, I will sometimes, but the people who disappear that stuff usually don't even bother mentioning it on the talk page? Irtapil (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)