User talk:Pilaz

Archives

2019-2021

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

It is approximately 4:24 AM where this user lives (Central European Time). [refresh]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Pilaz! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:54, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Pilaz for collecting more than 25 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there :) Concerning this edit, why specifying French and Italian for the pronunciation? Since this toponym exists in French only, any speaker of any language should pronounce it as it indicated, in French, so what's the point of specifying French, Italian? Simoncik84 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simoncik84: That's a good question, but basically the idea is to show how it's pronounced by French speakers and Italian speakers. Originally I wanted to show the "French" pronunciation of the official toponym, with the /ʁ/ sound (as in regarder), and also include the /r/ sound in second position since it's quite common to hear Charvensod pronounced that way by Italian speakers... what do you think? Pilaz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I'm not deeply attached to the inclusion of "French" or "Italian", so if you'd rather have those removed, feel free to be WP:BOLD. I was mostly replicating what I saw for other articles like Moscow or Munich. Pilaz (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pilaz, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• Consider joining the NPP Discord to chat with your fellow reviewers in real-time
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. Remember to take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a search engine) for compliance with the general notability guideline. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Joe (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to help out! While you're otherwise clearly (over)qualified for NPP, I do have to say that your actions around User talk:Atchom#Alan William Shave moved to draftspace and User talk:Atchom#Do not add Who's Who's (UK) gave me major pause. Overuse of draftify is probably the number one mistake new NPPers make and one of the most common reasons for revoking the right. Using it over disputably reliable sources—regardless of who's right about the sources in the end—and when you know the creator will object, would qualify as "overuse" in my book. If you'll take my advice, try steer clear of draftify entirely when patrolling new pages – it's not as useful as it may seem at first.

Regarding WP:NPPSCHOOL, I wouldn't bother. An experienced editor like you will know all the basics already and the rest will get filled in as you go. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Hi Joe, thank you for the opportunity and the links. With respect to draftify, I have changed my mind with respect to it in the way that you suggest - it's best to bring the matter to AfD when reviewing new pages that clearly don't meet the criteria for GNG. In the case of Atchom two years ago, he was introducing articles to mainspace which were below the threshold required by the GNG, since they all solely including one source (the GNG demands multiple). At the time, it seemed to me that Draftify could give him the chance to meet the AFC criteria without demanding the community's attention at AfD, and it seems to me now that I could have just tagged those pages for notability and circled around later to see if they were still in demand of more sources before sending them to AfD at a later time (AfD is a very time-consuming endeavor, especially if one is the nominator and engages in a thorough BEFORE).

Obviously this would be different with respect to the NPP process because the workflow prioritizes AfD over draftify, and I will follow it to the best of my ability. With that being said, Atchom was introducing articles with a generally unreliable source (Who's Who UK), and on that point the community consensus hasn't changed, and despite multiple reminders he was still pushing edits with the source, which to me appeared to be disruptive behavior, hence the final reminder. Luckily things smoothed out after discussion, as they usually do.

At any rate, your point is well taken, and I will steer clear of draftifying entirely when patrolling new pages as you suggest, and fully agree with your motivation behind this recommendation. Draftifying is usually less transparent than AfD and prone to more belligerence. Pilaz (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]