Do not edit this page; it is an archive of past discussions. If you would like to start a new discussion or continue a previous one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Darkdeath-2: I'm sorry; I don't know what the problem is. Could you please let me know on which page you are getting this message, and any other information on what it looks like? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkdeath-2: Hmm, I don't see the problem. It looks like you're changing your common.js and your common.css, though. I would recommend removing all the text from both of those pages. Your common.js stores what appears to be MediaWiki API results, and your common.css contains what appears to be JavaScript; both are causing errors (but I don't think that they're related to this problem with Twinkle). Can you take a screenshot and either email it to me or upload it and attach it here? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New to NPP, just curious. Is there a reason why, despite AfC accepting this with NPR, that this ended up in the NPP queue? Nothing in the log indicates unreview. I've marked it as reviewed. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you had approved the AfC submission for this article. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the article is largely reliant on a single source that is provided by the university itself. Would it have change your decision to approve the article then? – robertsky (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: I didn't know how to evaluate it, as it's from the State Ethnic Affairs Commission, which the university is affiliated with. However, it's still a government commission, so I'm not sure how neutral it is. It looks like much information sourced from it is fine for a primary source (former names, year founded, statistics, location), but some should be sourced to a secondary source (§ Academic programmes and § International cooperation). If you know how to evaluate this better, I defer to your judgement. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know what I'm talking about, because I've met the guy. He is my cadre. He literally has the name of someone famous, so I don't see why he can't be mentioned. You know what I'm saying?? Please consider my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korinalay101 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Korinalay101: "I know what I'm talking about, because I've met the guy" — original research is not allowed. "He literally has the name of someone famous, so I don't see why he can't be mentioned" — people are not notable because they share names with a famous person. Your addition was unsourced, and "Just go to oycp.com, and schedule an orientation" sounds like advertising. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. Request that you keep in mind, that there's also the article List of vice presidents of the United States, not to mention other lists of American officials. Perhaps you should open an RFC covering all those articles, at the appropriate WikiProject. Trying to push such 'big' changes boldly, may only create tension. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Hi, Tol. Hope all is well. :) Just a quick SPI clerk note: Please don't notify people that others have filed SPIs against them. Really even filers shouldn't do that, but if the filer chooses not to (the correct decision 99% of the time), it's best to leave the decision to a clerk, patrolling admin, or CU. Really the only reason we need subjects' participation at SPI is if there's confirmation (by CU or behavior) that someone has engaged in the alleged behavior, but a possible AGF explanation as to why. Otherwise, notifying someone just tends to attract a lot of bluster and turn SPI into mini-ANI. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)16:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Peer-18: I didn't decline it because it wasn't verifiable (not enough sources); I declined it because it did not demonstrate that the topic is notable. As the message at the top says, the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peer-18: Neither selling well, being available worldwide, nor being patented establishes notability. Regardless of how important you think it is to inform people about elastic chewing gum, Wikipedia only accepts articles on notable topics. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@talk: A rare insect can have an article even if it is almost extinct, but obviously not a rare idea/invention. What makes the insect notable but not the idea? Peer-18 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
