This user talk page might bewatched by friendlytalk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
An RfC is open on whether use ofemojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion underG15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
A colorized postcard showing the Dorothea Dix Hospital in Raleigh, NC circa 1910
You are invited to anOctober event series focused on improving content aboutDorothea Dix Hospital and creating a Wikipedia page for Dix Park. Join us for one or all three of the following: online kickoff October 5, in-person tour of the Hospital site at Dix Park on October 10, and an online editathon with a special guest from theState Library of North Carolina on October 19. Instructions on registering for the tour and joining us for the editathons on Zoom are included in theMeetup page.
Having seen an editor insert 'unknown' in the death date section of several infoboxes (because they inserted a template into the infobox that automatically calculates ages and displays an error if there isn't a death date for someone over a certain age), I would like to suggest an effort is made to get this essay made a formal guideline (I completely agree that we should not say 'unknown' in Wikivoice unless sources say something is unknown). Not sure how that would be done though?Number5719:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wrote the essay. Except in extreme situations where a person has disappeared or something along those lines, "unknown" is inappropriate. Chances are that someone knew of the death and in most countries since the beginning of Napoleonic records, has been recorded somewhere. Ignorance of the fact by the Wikipedia editor, does not mean the person's death was unknown and would be highly inappropriate to insert into an encyclopedia article.Toddst1(talk)20:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Chubbles: That appears to have been an errant click on my part. I wasn't aware that I had done that and there's no reason for me to have reverted it. Sorry. I've fixed it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Toddst1(talk)20:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editing from a position of paranoia? Hmm. Is this about the US english vs British english?
If that's the case, then yes - it was my mistake.
I was very, very angry with another matter here on Wikipedia involving an user who had been truly - and repeatedly harassing me because of an AfD. I have a tendency to be patient and even intended to keep his records on my talk page, but everyone has their limit. Mine was crossed.
One other user notified me of regional differences in language using a warning label, which is annoying to say the least. Wikipedia's software was recommending to make several corrections on grammar - and said user, instead of politely explaining the software should be ignored, said "You have the responsibility as an editor. It's your fault to check for that". Not with these exact words, but he was rude and simply "shifted the blame" back to who he wanted to lecture from a superior position - or so it seemed to me, and very strongly. Is he having a bad day? I don't know. Should I care? I'm not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Every dispute has two sides. Not exactly a welcoming attitude for a newcomer, huh?
If during this situation I have been "paranoid" as you say, know that it's only slightly so. I have been truly harassed by another user recently and this has a tendency to make you wary.
We really should be discussing this on your talk page where it started andyou blanked. Continue it on your talk page if you have anything further to say on the matter, please.Toddst1(talk)23:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account associated with their edits.
Administrators will now find thatSpecial:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start).T382958
AnArticles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in theGadgets settings.Sign up here to participate!
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded forre-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
I missed the citation for theWP:DOB down in theBiography section while I was cleaning up theWP:DOY page. I typically look at the linked biography for an unsourced entry on theWP:DOY page when I'm cleaning them and If I can't find a source for a living person's DOB in either place, I remove it from both. Thanks for catching that.Toddst1(talk)22:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to theAccess to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). SeeWP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.
Due to the result of a recentmotion, a rough consensus of administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor'sArab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.