User talk:Walwal20

This user may have left Wikipedia. Walwal20 has not edited Wikipedia since 1 January 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

It's a bit of work to find and add references, but more rewarding and productive than just removing stuff or asking others to do it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's so true, I could not agree more! It's also a bit of work to check the edit log and see who made verifiable edits and who didn't. Kind regards, Walwal20 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Your article Mackey-Glass equations is reviewed. Hopefully one of many. - hako9 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks a lot! That is really motivating. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your editing encouragement! I just learned how to send a kitten.

News to Me 123 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News to Me 123 Hahaha, I like kittens. Thanks for that :P Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Probability distribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you very much, DPL bot. Will fix it Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 10:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walwal20,

If I may, some varied unsolicited comments:

• In the absence of any urgency and without having exhausted other options (like discussion on my talk-page) first, it was entirely predictable that an ANI thread would be a mess (not draw admin attention, etc.).
• The ANI discussion is particularly annoying to me because it doesn't seem like you believe that I am substantively in the wrong. (If you thought, for example, that Miaumee's edits were significantly positive on average, then it would be an entirely different question, and running off to ANI would be more understandable.)
• Those things said, I bear no animosity or personal ill will towards you, and I will be happy to work constructively with you should our paths cross in the future. (And the same is true with respect to Miaumee!)
• Thank you for looking over the edit on Variance. (As I said on my talk page, I really do not mind being reverted if there is a substantive basis for doing so.)
• Finally, about source quality: in my view, Mathworld is a mediocre source, but it is still better than no source at all. (This is to distinguish from Mathvault, which I do not think meets the basic criteria at WP:RS.) The only place where it's really problematic is that it seems to make up nonstandard names for things; but I don't think that was relevant to the current brouhaha.

All the best, JBL (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JayBeeEll,

Unsolicited, but absolutely welcome. Thanks a lot for the message.

I cannot say that, in this particular incident, I did things in the right order, with the right timings or in the correct places. I did the best I could within my limited knowledge, and just hope I won't regret this later. For now I'm just glad that an admin volunteered to look into the incident, and hopefully will deal with things in a friendly and much more effective way.

I arrived at the situation about an hour after the revert at Variance had been performed, whose edit summary led me to Miaumee's talk page. What I saw was Miaumee being targeted with many unkind words (+ a block threat) from an editor with over 20 times more edits (aka experience) than her. I intervened as quickly as I saw it, mostly to alleviate the pressure on her; at least, I'd feel pressured if I were her in that situation.

Although I initially felt that things could be solved by other means of dispute resolution, after further investigating the situation I concluded that bringing it up in the AMI would be the best option. For one thing, the autocratic massive edits were unforgivable from my point of view. Also, the object of discussion (bad references + bad grammar) were not very concrete things to discuss; it is something that we can discuss eternally, without convincing each other of who is right, thus adding to the difficulty of handling the situation without involving more parties. On top of that, if it were the case of reverting your mass reverts, it would be better the sooner it was dealt with. Reverting your reverts after someone edited the page would be quite a pain due to conflicts. Finally, I alone did not feel capable to properly deal with the incident, given all the mentioned aspects.

Bringing it to the AMI was to have the incident, mainly the reverts and discussion on Miaumee's talk page, recorded in the noticeboard. To my limited knowledge, one of the purposes of the noticeboard is for recording these kinds of incidents, I guess for admins to consult later when necessary. Besides that, I also did it in hope that someone more experienced would take over... though it was much more productive to contact an admin directly.

Based on the above, I don't think you should be annoyed that I mostly agreed with your points, as Miaumee's edit quality played a minor role in bringing to the AMI. I also think she has a lot of potential, and if we teach rather than scold her, she might become a positive asset to Wikipedia.

Thanks for not bearing grudges at me. I'm not sure if I would be able to do the same if I were in your shoes, but I do hope so. I believe Miaumee won't bear ill-will towards you either, after the dispute is dealt with by the admin. You appear to be a very capable editor; I can only hope that I'm not too far behind you. It would be an honor to ever work with you if the opportunity arises.

Thanks again for the message.

Kind regards, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 08:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response (as well as at my page). I hope you are correct about Miaumee. Happy editing, & see you around, JBL (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mamunul Haque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly appear to be more up to the minute with templates than certainly I am given what you did with the notability template I wanted to stay during the debate on the talk page. Your replacement for the generic template the IP used was even better, and in fact that whole issue does in fact go to why I have an issue with the notability of this promotion so the IP did some good as well. But you - I must thank you for that and it strengthens the case for an AfD should nothing be done to improve the article as indicated. I'll give it time of course as the fresh templates are new. Thanks again. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addicted4517, thanks for the message. I'm always glad to help with tagging articles with the most suitable template for each particular problem. As for the AfD, it probably strengthens the cause from a political standpoint, but from a technical standpoint there is little impact, since Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page you'll see that there are no suitable sources available as I have made it clear what is wrong with the ones that are used at present. The lack of suitable sources goes directly to why the content outside of the titles is so bare so I disagree that the issue is in effect "political" (as you put it). FWIW. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see from comments above that you have some acquaintance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but there still appear to be serious gaps in you knowledge. For example, at Jeffery D. Long you removed a deletion proposal tag, saying in your edit summary "The number of citations indicate notability". Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not remotely or even vaguely depend on the number of citations. It is perfectly possible (and unfortunately common) for articles to be stuffed full of large numbers of citations none of which is of any use whatever in establishing notability. JBW (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW, thanks for the message. Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion (per WP:PROD). My research on the subject indicates that there is room to argue for a keep, so it doesn't seem uncontroversial to me. I deprodded so that it receives due WP:CONSENSUS on an AfD, and did it with the best of intentions. Best regards, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all that is fine, and I have no quarrel with any of it, but you said that the reason was "The number of citations", which is a different matter. JBW (talk)

On 03:03, 13 October 2020, you referenced me in this edit. I saw that proposed edit and I know that the book referenced was not relevant, but it wasn't me that accepted it. The edit history shows that it was User:Johand199 that accepted it. Do you agree? If I am wrong and somehow I am responsible then please accept my apologies. — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Hey Johnnie Bob, thanks for the message. I got a little lost with your message haha, let me see if I understood it. My edit summary there reads (Reverted 1 pending edit by 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:F534:605C:597F:941E to revision 983197778 by Johnnie Bob: That book has nothing to do with the requested articles. If I am wrong, please edit again AND use an edit summary to explain the addition.). Is your concern related to your name appearing in the edit summary? If so, you shouldn't worry. It is just stating that the article was reverted to the version right after your edit. Notice that I only reverted the edit by user 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:F534:605C:597F:941E (this is an IP address, for users that are no logged in).
  In short, there is nothing wrong with your edit or your conduct over there. You do not need to review the edits of other users, as that is the job of pending changes reviewers like me (although you are invited to join us ). Let me know if I helped clarify the situation. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Sorry, haha ... I understand now, thanks for the explanation. — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hartley Jackson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The same applies to The Mighty Don't Kneel. Facebook, Wordpress and Twitter are not reliable sources. Also under WP:BLP the source must be totally independent of the subject. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking warnings from you. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really disappointed to see this, after I warned you in no uncertain terms at AN/EW. Furthermore, your recent comments (I will continue to do what I think is right per the Wikipedia policies. The trouble of being blocked is nothing in comparison to the trouble of later blaming myself for allowing legitimate, sourced content to be easily removed by a single person. [1]) show a concerning WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I hope you will use this enforced break to think about how to better handle a situation like this in the future.

I will note that I have no opinion on the content dispute here. If the page had been protected at your revision and it was Addicted who was acting in the way you are, I would treat them exactly the same. My concern is that you are continuing to edit war after admin intervention, to try to reintroduce an edit that has not gained consensus. You've also made no attempt to try to gain consensus since the page was protected, but rather insisted that there has been one all along and that everyone else is wrong. You went so far as to draft an RfC at User:Walwal20/RfC Hartley Jackson even before it was suggested at AN/EW, so you clearly know formal consensus would help here—why have you chosen to continue the edit war rather than moving the RfC to be active?

When the block expires, I would strongly suggest you activate the RfC and not touch the mainspace of Hartley Jackson. Continuance of the edit war will result in escalating blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare. Thanks for the messages and feedback. I have posted my appeal. If it is not replied before the blocking expired, I at least hope it answers the questions you raised above. Kindly, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts attempting to gain outside input all appear to predate the AN/EW report. I was one of two people who told you at AN/EW that you should attempt to gather more input on the editing dispute. Nothing changed as far as the status of consensus between the time the page was full-protected due to the edit war and when the protection expired, and it was your decision to continue the edit war rather than discuss, even once explicitly warned, that I blocked you for.

As for your accusation that I am expecting unanimous consensus, that is absurd and I've said no such thing. But I am expecting a discussion where people who've objected to the inclusion of the statement can be involved. Picking people at random and soliciting their input on their user talk pages, where the person who has expressed concerns about your edit isn't aware and can't contribute, is not consensus-building. Posts to the WikiProjects are reasonable, but should at least be linked from the article talk page. You've already written a whole RfC, and I ask again, why did you decide to resume the edit war rather than activate the RfC you'd created? We could've avoided this whole mess, and if there is indeed a consensus that is so clear as you believe it to be, that would've quickly become apparent and the edit could've been made.

As for the actual unblock request, I'll leave that to another admin to review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, thanks for the messages. If I published an RfC, it would basically be placed again in the Wikiproject talk pages. If I received little input in the first time, I would likely receive no input in future times. That's why I decided not to publish it, and I probably won't, as I disagree with you on the consensus part. Also, I'm not trying to get anyone's sympathy. Please, WP:assume good faith here in my talk page. I bothered a huge load of people during this process, and I want to thank them regardless of whether they supported my position or not. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are listed widely, including at WP:RFC/A, and generally get a decent amount of engagement as a result. If you indeed received no input, that's a bridge that could be crossed later, but not publishing the RfC guarantees you won't get input. When the two uninvolved parties who weighed in at AN/EW urged you to gather consensus, and you're continuing to insist that consensus has been achieved and refuse to do so, I am concerned about what is going to happen if this block is lifted or when it expires.

I have no idea what your sympathy and AGF comments are about. I haven't accused you of seeking sympathy or made any bad-faith assumptions about you, and I'm confused as to why you're suggesting I have. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare why are you making it exceedingly hard to add a content to the article? I have done a whole ton of work here, why isn't Addicted also required to pull some other faces here to support him? If something is "predating" here, a word used by yourself, I would rather say that it is your behavior and way of thinking that might be predating content creation around here. And I seriously hope you don't accuse me of personal attacks here, since I'm using the same wording as you. It also bothers me that you're blatantly saying so much without even looking into the content problem, as per your comments "Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used?" (wtf, really?) and "I will note that I have no opinion on the content dispute here.". Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to look up what predate means. I have looked into the dispute; I think it's pretty clear that I was stating that I have no opinion on whether or not the statement about TMDK ought to be added to the article. I think we're at diminishing returns arguing back and forth here, though I will leave this page on my watchlist should a reviewing administrator have any question for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to ping the people to whom I requested advice. Idk if they are interested in the outcome, but I guess they can ignore this ping if they are not interested: GeneralNotability, Ritchie333, Lightburst Scottywong.
I also would like to sincerely... I cannot express this enough, I really mean sincerely. From the bottom of my heart. I sincerely thank DrewieStewie, Ravenswing, SeosiWrestling, HHH Pedrigree and *Treker for sacrificing some of your time to dedicate it to looking into the problem I brought up to them. You were the few from dozens and dozens of people that saw the issue but ignored it because they had other things to do (which is absolutely understandable). I might not be able to return the favour directly to you, but I'll make sure to give attention to the next users that request my assistance, so that we create a positive cycle of helping one another.
I almost forgot, but I would also like to thank Jammo85, even though I was the one kinda doing the favor here :P Jammo85 created his account recently, and initially made contributions that were not quite encyclopedic. But he has improved a gigantic bunch since this whole dispute started. I would like to commend him for his efforts in learning how to edit on Wikipedia, and in reading and learning about the Wikipedia policies. Please, do not be discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia articles, even though I recognize that it is really discouraging that a single person can completely jeopardize the Wikipedia system. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I am sorry to hear that you have been blocked. Fortunately, it is only 24 hours as is standard for a first offense of edit warring. Regardless of if this request is granted or denied, I am sure you'll return to editing in no time. Just please, refrain from edit warring. I recommend getting that RfC started once your block is up or lifted; the community is more than happy to provide a word. I have already deemed the sources reliable in my book. People might disagree, but that's how I feel. I think you have a bright future in Wikipedia, this situation just got crazy. You are fine though. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, here's my answer: if you got blocked for putting in a fact that was reliably sourced, ping me and I'll put it in. If your opposition is bucking and screaming with a rock-solid source in hand, this has ceased to be a matter of ensuring the article's accurate, and more by way of "OMG to let him put that in means I SURRENDER!!!!!!" Ravenswing 00:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned so much from you! I would have definitely left Wikipedia and never come back if it was not for your support and guidance. Instead of deleting, being spiteful and rude like one member (I wonder how many he has chased off from editing by the way?), you were compassionate, helpful and supportive. I was able to understand what changes I needed to make with my writing and editing for articles. And to help in a topic that was not of interest you, but you recognized and went above and beyond to keep the integrity of Wikipedia editing because you realized something was wrong needs to be commended. Thank you for the support. You are a legend. Jammo85 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stick around. I was sorry to see that you caught a block. I hope you stick around and keep making positive contributions to the project. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I think that Mr Ollie has been unfair in changing pages such as the unit root test. This is a technical topic and the articles such as by Maddala et al. that you mention followed up the earlier work by Sargan and Bhargava (1983). I hope that you can look at these issues and seek opinion from other experienced editors such as bender235 who "tidy" up pages after they have been edited for technical issues; I will refrain from reverting the various deletions by MrOllie. Byronpasha (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Byronpasha, thanks for the message. (Also pinging Bender235 just in case.) I think we can view things another way. I do think MrOllie removed content that had multiple problems, such as being misplaced in the text, and giving undue weight to one particular test. On the other hand, the page Unit root test is supposed to give a good overview of the tests, so I wouldn't oppose if you create a new section there to explain the tests in more detail. Even if you explain just the Sargan-Barghava test, I would not support its removal, as the problem would be the lack of detail on other tests. Feel free to act accordingly, maybe creating a section "Test formulations" or something, with subsections for each test you explain. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I will think about the issues and see how to proceed. Meanwhile, I am hoping that Bender235 or you can restore the old page as it is frequently visited and the material was clear to people specializing in this field. Currently, please note that the name "Bhargava" is mis-spelt and the articles by Maddala and Eliot that you mentioned build on the previous test due to Sargan and Bhargava (1983) and compare statistical powers of the tests Byronpasha (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byronpasha I made some edits to the page. The augmented Dickey-Fuller test was also sourced with a primary source... Anyway, I reinstated some of the previous explanation of the Sargan-Bhargava test. The removed excerpt was:

The optimal finite sample tests for a unit root in autoregressive models were developed by Denis Sargan and Alok Bhargava,^[1] by extending the work by John von Neumann, and James Durbin and Geoffrey Watson. In the observed time series cases, for example, Sargan–Bhargava statistics test the unit root null hypothesis in first order autoregressive models against one-sided alternatives, i.e., if the process is stationary or explosive under the alternative hypothesis.

I removed the "optimal" part, because that's a way too strong statement... has it been proved to be optimal? Sounds difficulty to be true. I also removed the part of "extending the work by..." because it is too vague. What work is this? If you give me the source for Neumann's work, I can place it there too. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 09:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed the In the observed time series cases, for example, Sargan–Bhargava statistics test the unit root null hypothesis in first order autoregressive models against one-sided alternatives, i.e., if the process is stationary or explosive under the alternative hypothesis. because it seems pretty obvious in the context of the article... do you agree? It just repeats what is said in the lead text, as that's the definition of unit root test... Tell me what you think. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 10:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I wonder if you are planning to create a new page for the Sargan-Bhargava test in due course. If so, perhaps you can include the material that has been deleted from this page and I can try to expand it. These tests are the main finite sample tests of null hypotheses and are "locally most powerful invariant" tests. The asymptotic tests proposed following the Dickey-Fuller articles have benefited from the finite sample approach because Dickey-Fuller tests can be unreliable in the presence of nuisance parameters such as the unknown mean of the series and coefficient of the trend variable in the model. Byronpasha (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byronpasha I will give it some thought. What I can say is that the Sargan-Bhargava test certainly warrants its own article, considering the relatively high number of citations it has. I'm currently not writing content around here, due to recent problems you can see here in my talk page, but as soon as I settle this drama I'll be back into writing content again. In the meantime, you might be interested in creating a draft User:Byronpasha/Draft:Sargan-Bhargava_unit_root_test to write one thing or two, or write an outline of what an article on such subject should look like (its section and subsection structure). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Let me see how we might set up this page. I am not familiar with typing equations in Wikipedia format and hopefully you will be able to help. Byronpasha (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I will help you report the problematic user Addicted4517. Where is the report you have written? I have found this user to troll Wikipedia often and revert edits for the sake of creating an argument. This user also has multiple sock puppet accounts. I have added correctly sourced information on multiple occasions which has been reverted reputedly by this user and I have found myself unable to edit the New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling page because of this user. Socks 01 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Socks 01 The report is full of {{ping}} so I could not write the draft here on wikipedia, or it would launch notifications to everyone and jeopardize the process. I would send it to you by email, but the "Email this user" button is not available in your user page. Maybe you have to change your preferences for that button to appear. You can email me instead (in my user page, left panel), if you want. Or do you suggest another way to send it to you? Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 09:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi yes I received your email. I will read the report and send you a few things to add. Socks 01 (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone who sees this, Socks is another example of someone who tried to attack me when I pointed to policy. He also failed to provide reliable independent sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

With respect to E-B number, and this, and the earlier ANI report about me: you seem to spend a lot of time trying to referee disputes, while also simultaneously injecting yourself into them. That is not going to lead to a lot of productive outcomes. For example, your recent engagement at E-B number has no possible relationship to a good outcome: there have been no edits for two days, your contribution does not appear to be based on any substantive principle, and specific objections have been raised to the material you restored, so the only possible thing that can happen as a result is annoying other editors and reigniting a dispute that seemed to have ended. I suggest you self-revert there, and in general spend less time trying to involve yourself in disputes on which you have no substantive position to put forward. --JBL (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JayBeeEll, that's a wise suggestion, and I appreciate it. My energy is focused elsewhere at the moment, as you noticed, so I'll leave the dispute on Erdős–Bacon_number. Thanks, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my two recent edits to Sinai–Ruelle–Bowen measure. In particular

• The phrase "In ergodic theory" does nothing to inform the lay reader that mathematics is what this is about. I changed it to this: "In the mathematical discipline of ergodic theory".
• The phrase "Sinai-Ruelle-Bowen Measure" is incorrect in two respects: (1) It uses a hyphen rather than an en-dash, and (2) the "m" was capital. I changed it to Sinai–Ruelle–Bowen (SRB) measure. I also changed the article's title to use an en-dash. See WP:MOS on dashes.
• Page ranges or year ranges or other ranges of numbers also require an en-dash, thus:

pp. 619–654, not pp. 619-654.

"John Xmith (1601–1702) was an English omphalologist noted for etc.etc." It says 1601–1702, not 1601-1702.

"The adult killyloo bird has a mass of about 3–5 kilograms." , not "The adult killyloo bird has a mass of about 3-5 kilograms."

Similarly I changed "Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy" to "Kolmogorov–Sinai entropy".

• I also changed ${\textstyle \epsilon }$ to ${\textstyle \varepsilon .}$ This is not in WP:MOS or WP:MOSMATH as far as I know (although I haven't looked very recently) but I think it makes the difference between ${\textstyle \varepsilon }$ and ${\textstyle \in }$ clearer.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael Hardy thanks a lot, not only for making such corrections, but also for explaining them to me. I took note and will pay attention to these details next time. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Walwal20, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Please note that using an alternate account (User:MathArcher) to edit project space is not permitted. Maxim_(talk) 17:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet*. But ok, whatever. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

Hi. You had participated in the 30-day RfC of Sherdog.com's reliability at RSN here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com and in the end it was closed to be used only for some basic fight information in the absence of reliable sources such as ESPN, on a case by case basis and with that fact that additional considerations apply on top of it (option 2 or 3).

But some editors (NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, Squared.Circle.Boxing, and a couple more) who voted for the reliability of Sherdog.com in the RfC, still enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the most trusted source on MMA-related pages and go edit-wars for it. They are like a small organized gang of editors that have taken anyting MMA-related hostage on the Wikipedia and act like owners of the whole site. It would be nice if you could help with the enforcement of the result and consensus that were reached there since you helped reaching the consensus in the RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.164.254 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are especially active on pages Conor_McGregor, Tony Ferguson and Dan Henderson, trying to enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the source over reliable sources such as ESPN, Fox, UFC.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

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

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

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

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

Wednesday June 8, 11am-5pm: New York Botanical Garden - Environment of the Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners

× × €4.95 / month Favourites List Audio Listining Color Mode Monthly New Updates Fullname * Email * Credit or debit card Subscribe A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 68 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 68 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Subscribe Now × €4.95 € 9.90 / Modal title × Close Save changes × User_talk:Walwal20" id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0"> A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: user_membership Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 208 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 208 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Harry Potter Books × A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: products Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once