You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.
There's nothing wrong with closing threads now and again, but you seem to have made it a full-time hobby. I would like to suggest you do something else with a portion of your time on Wikipedia, especially because some of your closes seem questionable (e.g., the one I reverted a couple of days ago, and the one today involving jengod that seems unnecessary at best). --JBL (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full time hobby. Hey, that’s a good way of wording it! Okay, so, say I take the advice, and cap out of closing. Wikignoming is my thing, right? I’d trainwreck much faster trying to improve articles. Any suggestions for somewhere else for a gnome to go?
Also, has anyone else noted any concerns over my closes? Any policy that vibes against my doing so? I’m listening, if anybody else isn’t liking it. Or is this more to stop anybody else kicking up a fuss? I’m bad at reading between the lines. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's no policy against non-admin clerking at ANI, but it's generally discouraged. Of course there's no way to know that, since it's not really written down anywhere, and tends to come up "in public" only at RfA.If you're looking for some deeply unglamorous low-difficulty gnoming, Category:CS1 errors: generic name (26,160) and Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (55,140) are pretty easy fixes spread across a vast quantity of references.Also late last month User:GreenC bot nuked a couple hundred references to domain squatter hugedomainsdotcom (now on the spam blacklist) between 20 and 21 June and between Special:Diff/1160957035 and Special:Diff/1161117705. This process doesn't leave a {{cn}} tag. So there's a bunch of old references to find archives for and insert them into the affected articles. If you're feeling particularly masochistic, there's also about 1800 citations to check across 2022 deaths in the United States (January–June) (921 footnotes, checked through 7 January) and 2022 deaths in the United States (July–December) (932 footnotes). This process involves clicking through to the source website and making sure the title, author, and date are correct and complete in the citation template, which have mostly been generated automatically. Folly Mox (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Mox. I’ll have a good look into your suggestions at some point, but today’s a key day in my new work role’s training (replying here while on break) and I’m on a roll, so I’m probably not going to be around here much today.
Oh yeah, definitely prioritise your job training. There will always be drudge work fixing zillions of minor Wikipedia issues when your timetable allows. I heard somewhere there's tens of thousands of cricket player substubs to be assessed for notability too, and WP:CCI could always use hands. Folly Mox (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I think what I would say is that I don't have any problem in principle with people doing NACs of threads at ANI that have obviously run their course and for which a summary could potentially be helpful to other people, but with some caveats like "not all threads need a summary", "threads shouldn't be closed if there's been recent activity", and "no one person should be doing a large percentage of closes". In your particular case I was struck by just how many closes you were doing, and my wording (suggesting splitting your attention) was deliberate. I don't think it's hard to find low-level article improvement tasks: in addition to the things Folly Mox mentioned, you could ask User:SuggestBot to make some suggestions, or click "Random article" and look for things that are easy to fix (bare-url references, sentence fragments, external links that should really be used as references) -- in the past I've found that maybe 1 in every 3 articles I find has something I can improve without needing to think too hard. And of course I agree with Folly Mox's last comment. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I actually used to use Suggestbot. The Article feedback thing?
I'm not sure what "the article feedback thing" means, but I checked and indeed, it does look like you tried SuggestBot once, almost exactly a decade ago [1] :O
I would really like to emphasize that I don't think I'm in a position to tell you what you're "supposed" to do! I am just another volunteer, making a suggestion (that you seem to be taking seriously, which I appreciate).
Fair, fair, and you’re right, SuggestBot and Article Feedback Service was what I meant. :) Maybe ‘supposed to’, isn’t the best choice of words, but you’re definitely more… integrated? Recognised? By the community these days, than I am, so I’m inclined to listen to you. Ahah.
Just came back to this thread, to explain something, before somebody else calls it to your attention. My first part of this looks like I might be trying to take a dig at you? I assure you I’m not. If anything, my intent is to show that, yes, you’re right, I’m taking the ‘don’t close ANIs’ business seriously. It’s just that, as we know from the Timfoley close, my wording can be, well, horrendous. MM(Give me info.)(Victories)13:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Sounds plausible. When I saw your AIV Report, I started running down LTA, to try and match it to anyone. Looks like you had that idea way before me. Who says patrolling NewUsers doesn’t lead to excitement? Haha.MM(Give me info.)(Victories)22:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never quite worked out how they all link to the original Piermak but hey, I still forget when to use curly or square brackets.
I should have remembered as Piermark was my first attempt at an SPI report and involved a load of really long and similar user names, all done from my mobile. Knitsey (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LTA Linking often winds up with the words “CU Check requested for sleepers” anyway. ;)
By the way, I don’t see WP:Village stocks on your user page’s list of reading material. Stocks are what brought me back last year. Might be worth your time.
Hahahaha! I actually picked up on it, on my break, but ran out of time to read it. Loaded it back up on lunch, and spent lunch putting that together (we had a buffet last Thursday, and a good chunk is still sitting in the floorplate’s fridge, so plenty of time on hand). I hope he can make something of that story on AO3. He’s clearly got imagination.
In the AN/I thread "Possible False Acusation", the diff you linked to was a mobile link (starts with en.m.wikipeida instead of en.wikpedia). If you could look out for this in the future, that would be great. Not too important, but it does cause an unexpected skin change on desktop. Thanks :) GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)00:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I hear you, Gray. All of my contribs these days are mobile, so I really cannot promise anything, but an attempt will be made.
While that talk page content is obvious silliness, I'd recommend just keeping an eye on the situation for now. Speaking as an admin, I certainly wouldn't be prepared to drop any hammers on anybody just for talk page silliness — if they start actually being disruptive in mainspace, then that would be the time to escalate, but for now I haven't seen anything that would initiate my trigger finger yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, I just deleted the text that you edited better source notifications but I have a question should the advertisement section receive the same treatment as a majority of its citations are YouTube links? Also if deletion is required should the separate article Draft:Commercials related to gyaru should also be deleted? Thank you. 80.57.242.245 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morning
I’m no Admin, and am very very inactive here these days. I just pick up fixes every so often that probably won’t be contested. You’ve been braver than I have.
To answer your question, see if you can find a more suitable substitute for the YouTube links, first. This and this should help with determining if a source is any good. Wikipedia’s not fond of sources from sites where just anyone can make the material. YouTube’s covered under section 10 of ’links normally to be avoided’. If the links are in Japanese, that’s fine, they can be marked as such.
You seem to have a passion here. Ever thought about putting up an account, learn how the place works? Wikipedia:Why create an account?
Thank you for your response and insight. I will be reading those two articles you recommend to have a better idea of what to cite next. Thanks!
I know this won't be any use to you as; you have stated already about not being as present as before though I am really at a loss on how to academically prove about most of the information present in said article(s) is true and not creative community input or AI material. As a majority of the topics discussed probably did have websites or discussions through news outlets; but are either obsolete (but can be traced to wayback machine), deleted or to find specific links you must know the exact URL.
As for passion for Wikipedia itself... Not really I'm mostly present only on this very subject and nothing else. I think it is mostly due to enough tangible knowledge on said subject and the article being since 2011 til 2018 had been a stub. So it's easier to work on a subject that needs help and not something that is being constantly worked on and me having little knowledge on it... Either way.
