User talk:Stanistani

Talk Page Archive 2006-2011
Talk Page Archive 2012
Talk Page Archive 2013
Talk Page Archive 2013-2015
Talk Page Archive 2016-2018
Talk Page Archive 2018-2020
Talk Page Archive 2021-2023

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Happy new year! --Reply

You're invited to attend a meetup at the San Diego Central Library on Monday 26 February 2024. Hopefully see you there. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find if, site admin, Midsize Jake has a Wikipedia account to contact them, so I'll post this here as I can see that you've linked your Wikipedia and are a 'Trustee'. I'm currently drafting a piece for The Signpost about the discussion on the Trump fist photo. My aim is to report accurately on Wikipedia. I came across this edit with the edit summary This was posted on Wikipediocracy. Let's be careful. Despite my efforts, I was unable to locate its specific mention on the site. I'm presuming this might be due to it being posted on a members-only thread. I attempted to register earlier, but I kept getting an error. I can't remember exactly what the message said, it included the word 'invalid', but I may have been on a VPN, with the location setting as 'Smart location'. I've tried again and I'm still having difficulty logging in.

If it was indeed posted on a members-only thread, this has saved me a lot of hassle. If I do mention it in my report, I will simply state, "It was posted in a private thread on Wikipediocracy", thereby avoiding the necessity of providing a link (even if the thread is subsequently made public, I'll still say that). If you see my previous work, I'm not going to be some sort of undercover journalist, exposing the members-only threads. But if I do want to report on something posted to a members-only thread for The Signpost, I'll run it past you/Midsize Jake/the poster/others for approval.

I was reading (and trying my best to understand) the ANI stuff last week, and another reason I wanted to join was to prevent impersonation. Is there a mechanism in place to prevent someone from registering with another user's name and making defamatory, lurid, and nonsensical posts that could impact the user? I'd also like to claim my username to prevent this possibility.

Most of what I've read on Wikipediocracy (mainly about wikipolitics) has gone over my head, so I won't be joining in with the discussions any time soon. This means that I also won't be reading the site regularly. Should any of my work be posted in the 'Crap articles' thread, please direct them to my talk page, and I'll (try my best to) improve it and work with those who also want it to be improved. Svampesky (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't make it clear, I wasn't confirming that the edit/Wikipediocracy will definitely be mentioned. The final decision rests with JPxG (or whomever is responsible for final approval). It is important to accurately report on Wikipedia-related events, as The Signpost's mission is to serve as the Wikimedia movement's online newspaper; but I'm also committed to protecting editors from harm. Svampesky (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My apologies @Svampesky:, I was not monitoring my Wikipedia account for a few days. The support email was the best way to contact us, and it worked. I have no problem with your version of events. →StaniStani 06:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Medical schools in Costa Rica indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stanistani: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Who: All members of the public

What: A Edit a thon in San Marcos, California.

When: Sunday 10 May 2026, 12:00PM PDT / 1200 until 4:00PM PDT / 1600

Where: a Library in San Marcos, California

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(Delivered: 02:50, 19 April 2026 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list and/or Los Angeles area task force mass mailing list.)

Who: All members of the public, especially active Wikimedians. What: Mission Bay Wiknic & Bonfire. When: Saturday 1 August, 4:00PM/1600 PDT until 10:00PM/2200 PDT Where: Vacation Isle, Mission Bay

The next day: Chula Vista edit-a-thon/salon When: Sunday 2 August, 1:15PM/1315 PDT until 4:15PM/1615 PDT Where: Chula Vista Public Library Civic Center Branch

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN ) Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs) Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 22:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list, and from future San Diego Wiknic invitations by removing your name from the San Diego Wiknic mail list.Reply

With apologies for disregarding "If you want to discuss Wikipediocracy, please do that on wikipediocracy . com (without the spaces)." at the top of the page, but I think the site being down is a good reason to ignore that - feel free to delete/disregard/whatever. Yesterday, I came across a "Server unavailable!" error, as opposed to "Server unavailable", although I can't remember any of the rest of the message. I just tried to access the site and I got redirected to "wikipediocracy.com/404.html", which gave a bogstandard "the requested URL was not found on this server" message. I access the site via "wikipediocracy.com/forum/search.php?search_id=active_topics". Any idea?--Launchballer 17:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ditto, I'm getting 404's as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is an outage, a severe one, and i have reached out to our administrator by email. I will update here when I know anything else.→StaniStani 23:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hemiauchenia, @Launchballer: I have news, the site will be back up soon, probably in 3-8 hours.→StaniStani 00:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh excellent. I just noticed it flipped back to 404 from "Danger Will Robinson". Yngvadottir (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I blame Mr. Smith! Carrite (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully that wasn't a typo, meaning 38 hours. I need my social media fix; suffering withdrawal symptoms ; wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Heh, me too. And were I conspiratorially inclined, I would wonder about this coinciding with what's erupted at AN/I. (Which I went to to get said fix.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Soups up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There was an oopsie in the hosting renewal. Technical term.→StaniStani 22:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stanistani and recall petitions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It appears that you have been canvassing—notifying a biased selection of users of an ongoing community discussion—which may undermine Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building. While helpful notices are allowed, they should be limited, nonpartisan, and neutral. They should not be spammed, support one point of view or side of a debate, or be selectively sent to those who may agree with you. Thank you. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Today is the anniversary of my first edit to Wikipedia, exactly twenty years ago.

I have not violated the policy, if you are referring to my post on Wikipediocracy. The forum has more than a thousand active members, many of whom disagree with me, and some I have taken disciplinary action against. I advocated no action, or even suggested showing up to a discussion.

As an aside, I am planning to create an article in Wikipedia to celebrate my 20 years here as an editor in good standing. I hope you will enjoy it.→StaniStani 11:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware until now that you had responded to this as I had failed to subscribe, but I have changed that.

You received this warning because I could not confirm that the WPO account was yours and not someone who was impersonating you. Hence that "[i]t appears that you have been [canvassing]" part above. Because of your above response, you have confirmed that the post was made by yourself. I do believe that you might have violated the guidelines on canvassing, but will look into it more before taking action. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Given that this is the first time this has occurred to my understanding, I feel like the above is enough per CANVASSING: "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using [Template:Uw-canvass] on their talk page." Since that has already been done, there is no point to doing anything else. I know you disagree, but I am convinced that it violated STEALTH as it was an off-wiki communication that notified editors of the discussion. Regardless, it doesn't matter unless someone else believes that canvassing occurs in another situation in the future, so please be more cautious in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

(Off-topic) I don't fully get the anniversary comments in this post, but you are free to create articles at any time. Personally, I wish I was better at doing so. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It will be my first article creation, so I will ask for mentoring from one of the better article creators I know.

I am going to open a discussion about canvassing at the forum, and a WPO policy change may arise from that discussion. You are welcome to register and participate in that discussion.

However: A criticism site has to discuss what is happening at the place it is critical of. People, including me, will say, "Look what's happening over here [link]." This will appear in a discussion about the merits and demerits of the issue. It's the whole point of free speech. So I feel there will always be friction between Wikipedia policy on canvassing and reality.

You can't police the whole Internet, phone conversations, meet-ups, relationships between people, and cafes.

At least our discussions are loud, and out in the open, and, we do try to be relatively fair, with a variety of views.

Most of the other places are people plotting in their own little shadowed corners.

I feel because of that, WPO members who are editors here are not violating the spirit of the policy. →StaniStani 03:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wishing Stanistani a very happy first edit day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Cheers, (⁠◕⁠ᴗ⁠◕⁠✿⁠) Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) 10:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day to you! Happy First Edit Day to you! Happy First Edit Day, @Stanistani! Happy First Edit Day to you!

Hi,

I am wishing you a happy first edit day!

A duck for you! In addition, Toblerone bars!

Cheers, (⁠◕⁠ᴗ⁠◕⁠✿⁠) Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) has given you a duck!
Ducks promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day much better.
Spread WikiLove by placing a duck on other user's talk pages by adding {{subst:Duck love}} to their talk page.
Happy editing!

Zahrazamedahmedi has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{subst:Toblerone bars}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Happy editing and have a happy first edit day! 🥳 Cheers, (⁠◕⁠ᴗ⁠◕⁠✿⁠) Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) 10:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Stanistani. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 13:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 13:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply