User talk:Lourdes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped get "Bhalchandra Dattatray Mondhe" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Cottalango Leon" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Daud Junbish" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Edmund Wainwright" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Rahul Thakkar" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "William Walker (Australian cricketer)" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped "Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851" become a featured article.
This user helped "List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna" become a featured list.
This user helped "List of Indian Premier League seasons and results" become a featured list.
This user helped "Cottalango Leon" become a good article.
This user helped "Rahul Thakkar" become a good article.
This user helped "William Walker (Australian cricketer)" become a good article.
This user helped build "User:Lourdes/AfDList", a script for assisting Wikipedia editors.
This user helped build "User:Lourdes/AfDclosing", a script for assisting Wikipedia editors.
This user helped build "User:Lourdes/AfDstarted", a script for assisting Wikipedia editors.
This user helped build "User:Lourdes/PageCuration", a script for assisting Wikipedia editors.
This user helped build "User:Lourdes/SpecialNewPages", a script for assisting Wikipedia editors.
This page's archives can be found at "User:Lourdes/Talk_archive"
This user maintains the following valid alternative username: "User:Lourdes/Alternative"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 3 April 2023 (→‎The Signpost: 03 April 2023: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revert your unblock

That was an awful reason to unblock Athaenara — consensus for the block was found at ANI. Please revert your unblock immediately. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to agree with TheresNoTime. This was a bad decision to make so boldly, especially considering the hateful statements that were said. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 08:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock of Athaenara

Hi Lourdes,

Hope you're doing well? Just a quick one, I note you've unblocked Athaenara so she's able to contribute to the ArbCom discussion, however I'm wondering if a full unblock might lead to problems per the consensus at WP:ANI that the initial block was justified. Understand the premise of allowing them to contribute to the argument over at ARBCOM or any future ANI discussion without feeling like they have to have every talk page watcher see the messages first, but there's no community consensus for a full sitewide unblock, I'd suggest restricting to just Wikipedia-space and Userspace at most. Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to amend my comment (I'd forgotten that the original comment was made in Wikipedia space, so even a partial unblock there would be inappropriate in my opinion). I now think a full reversal of your unblock would be best here. Mike1901 (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are rumbling at RFAR that your unblock of Athaenara should be reviewed as part of a full case. While I am trying to discourage that, I do want to note somewhere, in case you value my opinion, that your unblock was not just a bad idea, but an actual misuse of the admin tools. Not serious enough to warrant being raked over the coals, but a true misuse. There was already an overwhelming consensus at ANI to keep the block in place. It was not your right to over-rule that. I assume this isn't a pattern, so that's all I feel is necessary. But it might make the RFAR less screwed up - an make your life easier - if you actually acknowledge that the unblock was incorrect at the RFAR page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I see that you have unblocked Athaenara to participate in the Arbitration request. That was not necessary - as I mentioned on both her talk page and at ARC, she can request comments be copied over - as per our normal practise. I don't believe any arbitrator has requested her unblocked, so if your only reason was to allow participation at Arbcom, please can you reverse your action? If, on the other hand, you believe she should be unblocked generally - well, that's a different matter. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Lourdes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARC

I've listed you as a party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#INVOLVED actions of TheresNoTime, but am not calling for any action against you. I'd rather you weren't listed as a party at all, but I don't think that's an option. I'm sorry if this ends up causing you drama. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion proposed

An arbitration motion that relates to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

Hello Lourdes. I understand that something caused you to stop editing a while ago, and I don't intend to pry, and we're all entitled to take breaks when needed for our own well-being.

That said, I am a little concerned about your ongoing administrative activity, particularly in respect of blocking users - often without warning, and always without communication after-the-fact (save for the block reason). This seems to run afoul of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Preliminary: education and warnings and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Notifying the blocked user.

Do you think you could consider both 1) starting to initiate preliminary conversations with subject users prior to blocking, and 2) notifying users on their talk page after you have placed a block?

I would appreciate it. –xenotalk 01:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi xeno, hope you are doing well. It has been quite some time.
To your queries, the accounts I block are promotional user names with promotional edits. With respect to you request for my initiating preliminary conversation with promotion only accounts, you may review Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only once more for your benefit and better understanding of our blocking policy and how these accounts may be blocked. If you have a different point of view with our policy, do let me know and I'll try to clarify further. With respect to notifying users on their talk page, you have the right point and that shall be implemented going forward. Please let me know if you may be concerned about any other facet of my administrative activity relating to blocking promotional users with promotional user names and I will look into it. Warmly, as always, Lourdes 10:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I’m well - hope you are doing well also (all things considered).
I appreciate you refreshing my memory about the disruption-only section. You’re right that in the case where the accounts are clearly showing by their edits that they are here for promotion only, it is permitted to block on site; as can inappropriate usernames in cases permitted by the username policy.
I’d just like to highlight a couple instances for further consideration. Easeustools (talk · contribs · count) had not edited as far as I can tell. In that case, they should have been asked to change their username. (I’ll share an extended rationale: sometimes when I’m trying to register on a website and all the names are taken, I will just look around the room or on my screen for a word or phrase to use as the username. Of course on Wikipedia the usernames are public and have certain rules, but not all users will know that at the outset.) From Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional usernames: "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." [emphasis in original]
The other example I wanted to look at was the user behind this diff - which did not strike me as overly promotional, and arguably improved the article in some ways (correcting a spelling mistake, updating some relevant information). There is a chance that this was simply a student, etc., of the school looking to improve the article and after being counselled to change their name could have gone on to make other good edits in other areas. New editors will often look to improve topics that are close to them, without necessarily having a promotional bent.
I do note that you have positively unblocked editors who fixed their username to the "John at Smith Inc." format and I appreciate that. In that context it seems you agree that editors who have a conflict of interest can sometimes contribute constructively in some capacity (a position I share - I was actually the user who worked with the precedent-setting User:Mark at Alcoa to improve the underlying article.) That’s another reason I would suggest trying to start with education, though I agree as long as they have actually already done promotional (not just COI) edits, policy does not require you to do so.
Happy to chew this over further if you have other insights or perspectives. Thanks for engaging and happy administering! –xenotalk 13:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi xeno. Thank you for the clarity in your response.. Much appreciated. With respect to user easustools, they added CDRoller: https://www.cdroller.com, EaseUS, https://www.easeus-tools.com, Disk Drill: https://www.cleverfiles.com, DVDisaster: https://dvdisaster.com, Minitool: https://minitool.com, GatDataBack: https://www.getdata.com
With respect to user behind this diff, they added, https://www.facebook.com/SLU.LaboratoryElementarySchool, https://www.facebook.com/SLU.LJHS, https://www.facebook.com/SLU.LSHS
Let me know if you are unable to understand the tools we blocking administrators use to check contributions. I can assist further. Please don't take this otherwise; I am concerned that you do not have the experience to review promotional edits and I would suggest re-reading the primers in this regard. I can assist always. Please let me know. Rest, if you want me to make any change to my review of promotional users, I will do that without any debate -- just ask; I respect your words. Warmly. Lourdes 16:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Lourdes, I actually hadn't thought to check the edits that were disallowed by the filter (seeing only an empty contribution history for the former). I suppose that could reasonably considered 'editing problematically'. All the best, –xenotalk 17:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s block, TheresNoTime (talk · contribs)'s use of the checkuser tool, and connected events. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. The initial parties will be Lourdes (talk · contribs) and TheresNoTime (talk · contribs).
  • The evidence phase will be shortened to one week. Parties are particularly invited to submit statements about their own actions.
  • There will be no workshop phase.
  • Non-parties are discouraged from submitting evidence that has already been submitted to the Arbitration Committee through the case request process.
  • Any case submissions involving non-public information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

Case request notification

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 23, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thousand actions - 100 edits

Dear Lourdes, re your query at the Bureaucrats noticeboard. I notice from the logs that your admin actions include a number of blocks you've made such as this where you didn't leave an explanation on the blocked persons talkpage. According to our blocking policy Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Notifying_the_blocked_user leaving a block message is a should rather than a must, and I'm pretty sure there have been some obvious trolls/vandals where I've chosen not to feed them with a message. But with you it seems to be the norm not to leave talkpage messages re your blocks. To go back to your query, I suspect that if you continue as you have been, but just default to leaving a talkpage message when you block, you will meet the 100 edits per five years threshold. Conversely, if you wanted to be an exception to the 100edit/60 month rule despite not leaving messages that should be left, I suspect some editors would baulk at that. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 12:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Were suggests seems like an elegant solution. SilkTork (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you use twinkle to block, then by default it will notify the user and thereby make one edit per block. I'm fairly sure that User:Animum/easyblock.js also notifies the user automatically too and is even quicker to use than twinkle. SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, all. Warmly, Lourdes 05:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block

Hi Lourdes, in the open Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth the time but maybe I'm wrong

Hi Lourdes, I see the proposed decision is posted, and among other things, you're being criticized for not checking with me first before unblocking. While (as I've said elsewhere) I wasn't a fan of that unblock, I do have a note on my talk page that says "If you think an admin action I've taken in the past is wrong or no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first." So, my question is, did you see that note and then decide not to contact me? If so, and if you'd like me to, I can figure out where to post to tell the Arbs about that (sorry, it didn't occur to me to post as evidence). If you didn't see it first, or you don't think it's worthwhile, I won't do anything. Let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam, you can detail this in a section on the talk page of the proposed decision if you so desire (bear in mind there is no threaded discussion so create a section just for you). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flo, thank you for the note. With all honesty, I did not see your note. Thank you for the heads up. Warmly, Lourdes, 08:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

  • added
  • readded
  • removed

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP script help

Hello, looking for someone to modify an existing script whose author is inactive. It's not trivial like a typo, but probably not that much work either. Would you be willing to help us out. If so, I can fill you in on the details. Thanks. MB 22:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB, hope you are doing well. Good to hear from you. I am sorry. Really tied up in some film festivals and have my hands full... Would have loved to help though... Warmly, Lourdes, 06:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has now closed and the final decision has been posted. The following remedies and motions are part of the final decision:

  • For breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is warned.
  • For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the CheckUser permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
  • For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
  • For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is admonished.
  • The Arbitration Committee wishes to express that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Actions by parties to a proceeding does not apply to TheresNoTime given that a majority of active arbitrators had opposed desysopping them at the time they relinquished their adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

Questions regarding deletion of post

Hello, could you please explain why "Chirpyest" was deleted and let me know what I can do to improve my article? Ekisner828 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ekisner828 hi. The article was initially deleted as a draft on 27 October and then again by me as an article, because of the promotional tone the article contained. I will suggest reading up Wikipedia's notability guidelines to understand what kind of articles have a higher probability of being kept. (As I am not usually that active here, if there's any urgent query, you can go to WP:HD. If you can wait, don't hesitate to ask me). Thanks, Lourdes 10:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Seventh First Edit Day!

Hey, Lourdes. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about possible hoaxes

That was my first hoax report, and I was convinced it was a hoax, due to unlikelihood of sources not existing for some of the claims about the targets bombed/Huey Newton quoting them. But I didn't find any signs from user's other edits, what else should I keep in mind when reporting under CSD7? This was my first hoax report, so advice is welcomed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request that this page be restored as the NWLF is most definitely not a hoax, although it is very difficult to find information on them, which is why it was taking some time to assemble the article. As I mention in the Talk page for the now deleted article:
== This page should not be speedy deleted because... ==
This page should not be speedily deleted because this group (NWLF) is well documented, including in the pages of several notable people including Dianne Feinstein and events like the Moscone–Milk assassinations as well as featuring prominently in the book Season of the Witch: Enchantment, Terror, and Deliverance in the City of Love. The current source on the page is reputable, the group is not a "hoax", there is just very limited documentation. I have assembled several sources, I just haven't had as much time as I thought I would to summarize them appropriately:
1. A member of the radical New World Liberation Front... UPI. Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/06/07/A-member-of-the-radical-New-World-Liberation-Front/1285423806400/
2. Index:Threats to the peaceful observance of the bicentennial.djvu - Wikisource, the free online library. Accessed December 28, 2022. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Threats_to_the_peaceful_observance_of_the_bicentennial.djvu
3. New World Liberation Front (NWLF). Accessed December 28, 2022. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/nwlf.htm
4. New World Liberation Front (NWLF) – 1977 article. radicalarchives. Published February 6, 2010. Accessed December 28, 2022. https://radicalarchives.org/2010/02/06/nwlf-1977/
--Goatsnstoats (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you linked to are primarily blogposts, and or other WP:Tertiary sources like Wikisource which are unsuitable. I was blinded by that and had hard time finding out who they were. But yes, there are independent sources referencing their existence, such as Washington Post, Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, which mention it in briefing. The book Day of Rage specifically claims it was an offshoot/subgroup of Symbionese Liberation Army which may explain the scant sourcing. Either way, I owe you an apology for calling this a hoax, and request the article's undeletion. It may be worth redirecting, but hoax it is not. I was thrown off by what I percieved as dubious sourcing and not finding any searches in Google, or any Huey Newton quotes as mentioned in the GlobalTerrorist blog post. But presence of dubious sources don't negate the reliable ones. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion filing was incorrect. An organisation shouldn't be titled a hoax even if claims in the article are not verifiable. I deleted on A7 and believe it is appropriately deleted. So I will not undelete. However, you may consider creating an article in the draft space and sprucing it up before bringing it up to mainspace. Thanks. Lourdes 06:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Lourdes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MB 13:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncalled for accusations and long term obsession by NotReallySoroka

I had actually made an SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy) before Corwen made their ANI thread against my behaviour. Therefore, I disagree with your ANI comment that I should "either take [my] evidence to SPI or stop immediately with [my] accusations" because I already sent my evidence to ANI. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NRS, hope you are doing well. You should have written this on the ANI thread. Now that Corwen has been blocked, this is water under the bridge. For the future, irrespective of filing an SPI, you cannot accuse an editor of being a suspected sock on article or other pages. It is for the SPI report to take its own course. I hope that's clear. I look forward to interacting with you productively in the future. In this case, thanks for catching the sock and sorry that you had to go through this. Warmly, Lourdes 13:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the Backlinks script to strip 'Draft' prefix

Hi, Lourdes. I've had your handy backlinks script installed so long, I thought it was part of the standard installation, and added a request at WP:VPR to update it (here). Could you update it with that in mind? Thanks again for this script, which I use frequently, and thanks to Nardog for reminding me where it came from! Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot. Hope you are well. As I use wgPageName in the script, it would literally take the title of the page you are working in. I can use an if-then but my apologies I don't have time on my hands. For now, if it's okay, continue doing what you're doing (deleting the "draft") sign. Warmly, Lourdes 04:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter

I saw you withdrew the RFAR. I just wanted to say I don't think there's any reason to take this to WP:AN. Nothing will come of it. Should it have been speedy deleted? No. Should it have been undeleted by the author? No. Will either of you face sanctions of any kind other than a trouting? No. A WP:AN thread will waste a lot of people's time. Unless there's a pattern of inappropriate behavior by either of you, nothing will come of it. Let the MfD run its course, and that should be the end of it. If problems crop up in the future, this might be a reference point, but beyond that? Let's get our coffee cups refilled and let's move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur likewise I guess. Thanks for the advise. Warmly, Lourdes, 05:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
One bit of advice I would give admins, yourself included, in addition to the above good advice, is whenever you feel like using a "button" on your own initiative (that is, rather than in respond to someone else's request), think not "Is this obvious (to me)?" but rather "Could someone who wants to blow up dramah possibly construe this in a way that will please them?" And, if the latter is remotely plausible, just initiate the user-level process rather than using buttons--that is, in this case, tagging the page, rather than deleting it yourself, would have resulted in less drama. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lourdes, I've removed the RFAR following your withdrawal. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lourdes&oldid=1148027576"