| This is Fanfanboy's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| WikiProject Users | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Sometimes I make mistakes too when reverting edits. Keep up the good work! 94rain Talk 23:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, I have reviewed a policy some time ago and have some practical questions.
""The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."" Manual of Style
""If discussion fails to reach a consensus regarding which of two or more competing styles to use at all, then default to the style that was used in the first post-stub version of the article in which one of the applicable styles appeared. (This fall-back position does not give unchallengable primacy to that particular style during consensus discussion, nor give the editor who imposed that earliest style any more say in the discussion.)""
When people repeatedly maintain that one style takes precedent over the other while both are fairly adequate, or the new introduction has some issues not present in the original, how should one approach this problem? My initial impression was that in the absence of substantial contribution the original style should generally take precedent until some common understanding takes place. StuckMuck ( talk) 00:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm going to be honest here, I'm not the most experienced with Wikipedia and most of what I do is revert edits (whether in good or bad faith), and I would highly recommend talking to a more experienced editor who has a couple thousand edits.
- However, in my opinion I feel that your interpretation of the policy is correct. So yeah, I think the original style should take precedent until consensus is reached. Fanfanboy ( talk) 14:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fanfanboy. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
- Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
- Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 10:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| You've beaten me and my Huggle to a few reverts today. Quick moves, cowboy. Have a well deserved barnstar! Synorem ( talk) 13:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
It’s not a wrong edited or removed content. It was full of lies and wrong information about this person 2806:104E:19:817A:11D8:83BE:C699:CC3B ( talk) 16:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Then take that up to the articles talk page because the information removed was cited. Fanfanboy ( talk) 17:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Personhumanperson ( talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Wcif 106.3fm is no longer a radio station , https://flaglerbroadcasting.com/stations/st-augustine-country-106-3#menu 2600:1006:B136:4598:0:B:95F:6701 ( talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then edit the page to clarify it's defunct in a manner that is NOT disruptive, like changing "is" to "was" and/or add a sentence in the intro saying it's no longer around. Thanks! Fanfanboy ( talk) 18:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to ask you what was unconstructive about my editing of the article on ČSA 540. I added constructive information from articles, wikipedia of other languages, where the information I found was constructive. Thank you in advance for your reply. Tranvit ( talk) 19:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- After looking through all your edits on that article (I only saw your latest, and it looked somewhat wrong so I just assumed), I come to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with your edits. I have restored the information you have added. Thank you for sending me a message as if you haven't then your would've stayed reverted. Fanfanboy ( talk) 19:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)