User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Emporia State University

Hey, mind weighing in over here? Content is being removed by someone claiming to be an alumnus, therefore has no conflict of interest. Methinks they doth protest too much. Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, if you'd like to restore the material, please do so, and start a discussion on the article's talk page ideally before doing so, or at least directly when doing so. Then invite the user to it, who does seem to be listening to talk page messages. I'd ignore the connection and focus on the content and possibly edit warring behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter to me. A bit suspicious is all, particularly with such large swaths tagged m removed as their first edits.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely worth keeping an eye on, and it would be a problem if it went against others' remaining concerns. At the moment, noone seems to have complained about the most recent edits, neither by reverting nor starting a talk page discussion. So at the moment, it seems to be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-11

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 March. It will be on all wikis from 14 March (calendar). [1][2]
• After consulting with various communities, the line height of the text on the Minerva skin will be increased to its previous value of 1.65. Different options for typography can also be set using the options in the menu, as needed. [3]
• The active link color in Minerva will be changed to provide more consistency with our other platforms and best practices. [4]
• Structured data on Commons will no longer ask whether you want to leave the page without saving. This will prevent the “information you’ve entered may not be saved” popups from appearing when no information have been entered. It will also make file pages on Commons load faster in certain cases. However, the popups will be hidden even if information has indeed been entered. If you accidentally close the page before saving the structured data you entered, that data will be lost. [5]

Future changes

• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [6][7]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Jason Knight (wrestler)‎

Hey, just wanted to let you that someone claiming to be the wrestler has been editing here. It appears that he's not at all clear on how Wikipedia works.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. Looks like a case for {{uw-ublock-wellknown}} and semi-protection for me. I have removed the challenged content for now, but I may have overlooked other issues. If you have the time, please check the article for basic verifiability issues or similar problems too, and just remove them. The user may return to editing with their autoconfirmed account after verification, and I'm not sure if they actually understand the issues yet, but we'll see... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

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)

"Serail"

Thanks for catching that! I never noticed. I certainly think Mozart would probably be less... energetic than most of the alternatives!  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Heh, true. No problem! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the page protections!

Shaws username . talk . 00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten! Thank you very much, Shaws username, and please let me know if more are needed. Simply request at WP:RFPP and notify me about the request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Curious

Why delete valid information, when the statement made by nintendo never even actually named Palworld, but shut down a company no more than 5 days later? Seems kinda sus to me that you would do something like that. My sources are 100% valid, trolls just kept deleting it. Apparently they didnt like the link having %s in it, so i added 4 verifiable sources instead. Im not so sure how thats not valid when it was speculation that nintendo was going after pocketpair in the first place. Elinias1 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elinias1, I have no opinion about this (other than: edit warring is not a solution). Please discuss this at Talk:Palworld § Palworld or PokeZoo? instead. I have invited those who had removed the content to the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies dear sir/maam. It didn't actually show up at first. Feel free to remove this as you have directed me to the proper location. Elinias1 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)