Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Hello. I reverted edits by User:Karakarga70 in VP9, as the user is clearly confused and still doesn't understand what they're doing, despite repeated explanations, and their edits were decidedly wrong. Unfortunately, by reverting the page to the last clean version, I also unintentionally reverted your edit. I am sorry for that. Sadly, I cannot do any more reverts on that page because of WP:3RR (I really think WP:3RR should be changed to allow these routine, uncontroversial reverts, but that's not the point here).

So, I'm afraid I can only restore your edit tomorrow. You can of course restore the edit yourself (you could perhaps point to this discussion in the edit summary). Again, I'm sorry for the inconvenience.—J. M. (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

• Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
• The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello K4rolB, relating to GIMP, what is meant by unencyclopedic? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Computing Barnstar
		In recognition of all your work, specially at Free and Open Source Software articles. –Daveout(talk) 21:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate that! :) — K4rolB (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's increasingly difficult to see good faith in insistence on removing a whole chunk of content in OpenGL, which clearly meets Wikipedia standards, backed with completely nonsensical labels and reasoning in your edits descriptions – and yet I restored it once again with statements of the obvious in my comments, instead of simply reporting you along with the original remover (to whom I left a note with assumption of good faith he clearly doesn't deserve judging by reply https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StigmaOfTruth) for vandalism.

Especially considering that you didn't care much about this section for over a year, limiting your apparent dislike of these facts to placing of POV label https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1050591347?diffmode=source – totally inappropriate, since there's nothing POVy about citing these facts: the industry is moving away from OpenGL as it's not a forward-looking technology after Khronos released Vulkan and has channelled effort into developing and evolving it.

But you suddenly started caring a lot about removing it after I restored most of the section. What has changed? The only triggering event I can think of is my correction (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1146693577) of your recent edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1136227725?diffmode=source), in which you managed to get wrong both the year and the game. Not a nice way to react to a correction.

Anyway, if you ignore Wikipeda guidelines and my comments once again and choose to start edit war instead, trying to get rid of this content – not because it's inappropriate for Wikipedia, but because you apparently don't like it (judging by your irrelevant POV label), I will report you two for this vandalism. Is it clear to you? 188.66.34.189 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my edits on OpenGL page are based on Wikipedia guidelines and are not meant as a personal attack against you - I am sorry that you feel like that. This is no reason for veiled threats.

I put reasonable explanations on each removal and linked relevant WP guidelines. Please review them again, mostly Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you believe my explanations are "completely nonsensical" please share your rationale so we can have a constructive discussion over Talk:OpenGL. – K4rolB (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K4rolB! I am writing to you about your reversion of an edit on ActivtyPub.

I edit a lot. Frequently, I come across a link to an article in a online journal or news site that I think it is beneficial to an article that I do not normally edit nor have time to edit. I do this when it has something to add to the article.

I often will add that link to an External link or Further reading appendix in the belief that it is useful to the reader & the hope that someone will be able to weave it in the article. If I think that it will need context & copyediting, then I may add it to the talk page instead.

I believe that the source that I posted, Pierce, David (2023-04-20). "Can ActivityPub save the internet?". The Verge. Retrieved 2023-04-21., was a benefit to the article. I think that it meets WP:ELYES & does not run afoul of WP:ELNO.

Unless you can explain why my edit runs counter to these guidelines, I respectfully ask that you do one of these three actions:

• Weave the source into the article as a footnote.
• Revert your edit & restore the citation.
• Move the citation to the talk page & indicate that you do not have time to weave it into the article but hope someone can.

I do not believe that your edit summary that this would work better as a reference to some info in the article justifies removing a potential improvement. Improving an article is incremental & cooperative. If you see something that needs fixing, fix it. Please consider that you should not revert edits that are not harmful, & not remove citations that are generally reliable & seem relevant. Peaceray (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Free software movement.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]