Warning about paying for editing or other actions on Wikipedia This user is not affiliated with any group or organization that charges a fee for any activity relating to Wikipedia. If you have seen an advertisement for, or received any kind of message from, someone who claims that they can help you with any kind of issue with Wikipedia for a payment, it may be a scam. If any such advertisement or message refers to this user name, please mail me a report.

This is aWikipedia user discussion page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other thanWikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other thanWikipedia itself. The original page is located athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Donald_Albury.
To leave a message on this page, clickhere. If youemail me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. *Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ ) Comments which fail to follow the rules above may be immediately deleted.
-->Archive 14 -Archive 13 -Archive 12 -Archive 11 -Archive 10 - Archive 9 -Archive 8 -Archive 7 -Archive 6 -Archive 5 -Archive 4 -Archive 3 -Archive 2 -Archive 1	Archives

Licensing rights granted to Wikimedia Foundation

I grant non-exclusive permission for theWikimedia Foundation Inc. to relicense my text and media contributions, including any images, audio clips, or video clips, under anycopyleft license that it chooses, provided it maintains the free and open spirit of theGFDL. This permission acknowledges that future licensing needs of the Wikimedia projects may need adapting in unforeseen fashions to facilitate other uses, formats, and locations. It is given for as long as this banner remains.

This user is aware of the designation of the following ascontentious topics: articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change Heshouldnot be givenalerts for those areas.

I represent the Dunedin History Museum and the city historian. The reference link(s) to the first land grant and the incorporation of the city is from an old incorrect city of Dunedin page. The dates 1852 and 1925 are incorrect for the first land grant and the founding of the city.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.96.115.241 (talk •contribs) 15:10 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact that editor has repeatedlyrefused to advise me of what the problem is. I'm surprised to hear that editor is an experienced editor as I had not seen need to check. Right off attempting to inject FRINGE political bias and going on to repeatedly demand I debate positions I don't hold is strange for anexperienced editor. I have said several times that we can remove and change any parts of my added text and asked how he wants to do that: He still refuses to reply instead insisting on these debates.Invasive Spices (talk) 31 January 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• AnRfC is open to convert all current and futurecommunity discretionary sanctions to (community designated)contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• Anarbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited tosign up forThe Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improvevital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please checkthis survey if you are willing to respond. FYI I found your participation via XTools.Czarking0 (talk)02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• Aftera motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections atWP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g.[[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

I am requesting administrative attention regarding a user's recent actions. I've included a link to their talk page, which documents a history of disruptive behavior.Most recently, this user moved one of my pages from main space and, in response to my concerns, provided what appears to be an automated response that lacked clear, actionable steps for resolution.I've since responded to the user, requesting that they restore the page. Given the user's apparent history—which includes multiple past complaints for disruption on their page—I am escalating this matter to an administrator for intervention and guidance.Please advise on the appropriate next steps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PraxidicaeRedBeardBarbarossa (talk)19:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedBeardBarbarossa: A suspicious account? Really?@Praxidicae: is an editor with nine years experience and over 170,000 edits. The edits you linked are part of a rather low-key content dispute. What specifically do you think they did that is a violation of ourpolicies and guidelines?Donald Albury19:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm not trying to waste your time. thank you for looking into it; While this may not be a clear-cut policy violation, I'm finding it difficult to determine what criteria would justify labeling the action as a 'disruption,' since a specific threshold isn't clearly defined. I'm new here, so I'm simply seeking guidance, especially since I've seen other users report similar issues regarding the removal of specific information from well-vetted references. If the standard protocol requires attempting to settle this issue before escalating, that is fine. I chose to escalate because I believed I was observing a pattern of problematic behavior. If I need to wait, or if there is no clear evidence of maliciousness, I can retract my statement. However, I believe situations like this should be monitored regardless. The site is susceptible to automated and user accounts that, while not strictly violating policies, can diminish the overall user experience—an unfortunate reality of the current internet environmentRedBeardBarbarossa (talk)23:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just saw this. I have nothing to add to it other than hysterical laughter.SPOOKYDICAE👻19:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In yourclose, would you please strike out "move request started by non-ECP editor (see edit notice at top of page)"? It incorrectly implies that non-extendedconfirmed users may not participate on the talk page or start move requests. When the CT talk notice says

The following restrictions apply to everyoneediting this article:
This page isprotected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account

(emphasis added), it doesn't mean you must be extended-confirmed to edit the talk page, which is not protected (nor subject to anextended confirmedrestriction, which is different and can't be imposed by a single admin). While a talk page can be protected under the contentious topics procedure, theWP:STANDARDSET of restrictions does not provide an admin authority to ban all non-ECP users from a talk page that isn't protected (in particular, EC protected). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)08:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into that before making the edit. What's good enough? I have found articles from the Polk County Historical Association's quarterly publication that use the word (the share dot google dot com link isn't accepted by Wikipedia, unfortunately, but if you search up the June 1976 issue, p. 5, fourth paragraph, you will find it easily), and obituaries that refer to people that way (here's one from 2013:https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/wofford-stidham-obituary?pid=166766967), and news articles (seehttps://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/00/02/82/92/00988/09-20-2014.pdf, headline on p. 3 from an issue in Sept. 2014). But none of those say "this is the right word," they just use it appropriately. What would be the preferred reference?PFrisbie (talk)18:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I went with the newspaper article.PFrisbie (talk)18:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who give the WMF permission to license their text into any copyleft license that shares the spirit of the GNU FDL
• Wikipedians contributing under any copyleft license that shares the spirit of the GNU FDL