This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
This is not the place to make that request. Nor has any page edited by your account ever been deleted, not at this point in time. --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to become an Admin because I like the way how wikipedia looks, and keep the good community up! It would be nice to have Admin. I'm online almost everyday, and I created this account today but I have been here for a while.
This is for submitting edit requests to this page, not to request adminship. I will let someone else provide further details. Mstrojny (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Mstrojny notes, this is not the right place for this request. That said, candidates for adminship are expected to be highly experienced editors, with many diverse contributions across the namespaces. Since you made your account today, you need to spend some time showing your experience on Wikipedia before you request adminship. I strongly recommend reading the information at WP:NOTNOW. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to have a Wikipedia feature that can read out aloud some of the information to those that can't see or to those that are just lazy or don't have the time to read through an article. Thendokhae073 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toh Yu Heng Per the information I gave you at the Teahouse, if you were to nominate yourself now, you would be rejected quickly. Many participants at WP:RFA(which is where you go to make a nomination) reject any candidate with less than a year of experience and a certain number of edits(usually thousands). You have 35 or so edits and just created your account today- your chances of success at an RFA discussion are just about zero. Just concentrate on being a good editor. If you do, and after much work and experience, develop a need for the tools, other users will notice and offer to nominate you. Again- you can do 95% of tasks without being an administrator. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what its goals are if they need administration to achieve them. The goals of wikipedia that I know would be completely stamped out by this. Maybe this is the reason for the Slow Decline, or the Long Decay. This must also be the reason they need more donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Sarwal (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article writes: "At the top of the human and legal administrative structure is the Wikimedia Foundation, (...) governed by a Board of Trustees." (..) "the Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia". For people close to the Foundation these are simple and clear facts. For many many people at some distance from the Foundation however, this is not so clear, for them Wikipidia is owned and governed by it's users. Therefore the proposal to add links to sources from which can be learned what the role of the Foundation is - owner of all hard- and software (?), legal holder of all rights to the data (?), "legislator", the organisation from which administration-functions are being delegated / mandated to users not wokring for the Foundation (?). Thanks, keep up, stay healthy! WillTim 2001:16B8:11E0:6700:9944:CFE0:4EF2:1719 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this informative article. Much of the information however is not verifiable on the base of sources outside Wikipedia. Can people ( @DannyS712: ) please take care of that? Or give reasoning why it is not necessary here. Tt would help to edit other articles, for instance those that have to do with Wikimedia and Wikipedia policing and dispute solving. 87.123.207.54 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the article of Pele a certain user (PeeJay) keeps on deleting :
-Official statement (IFFHS) for the player
-Updated statistics (2021) instead of experimental ones that existed
-References from reliable sources
Let me know if all these are in favor with Wikipedia Policies, so to know if I'm going to write any more. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Contributor" as well as "Editor" are used in WP:Administration and no definition is given... It is even more important as it is the very first link on Help:Getting_started Welcome to Wikipedia!
WP:Administration only gives a definition for "Editor" although "Contributor" is also used on this page (and more importantly all over Wikipedia!).
Let's be precise and clear from the beginning for newcomers and non-editing readers (in their minds another name=another status, and this is even more true for non-native English speakers). A quick and short explanation that a contributor is an editor should be provided to them (if it is not stated, people will tend to think that they are different "status" — and it can be "confusing" because these 2 words are sometimes used together on Wikipedia pages).
I have noticed that "technical" pages (for example: administrative pages) will try to push the usage of "Editor" (although you can find "Contributor" from time to time... even against the will of the editors because of transclusion; see example below). But in general, Encyclopedia articles (for example: Wikipedia) and legal pages (for example: Wikipedia:Copyrights) will mix "Contributor" and "Editor" words incoherently and randomly.
Some uses found: "a community of contributors", "a major contributor", "foreign-language contributors" but "Template editor"...
English is spoken all over the world and non-native English speaking readers will find no aid using a thesaurus to help them understand that contributor=editor:
An informative notice Template:essay that can introduce "confusion" to newcomers and readers (especially when this notice is placed on top of articles only using "Editor" in their pages, for example: Wikipedia:Cherrypicking is using 33 times "Editor" and 0 time "Contributor"):
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Actual version:
Editors, often referred to as Wikipedians...
My suggestion (or something better phrased from a native English speaker):
Editors, also known as contributors, often referred to as Wikipedians...
Alternatively, a complete section should be created for "Contributor" if there is no room for a quick and short explanation!
The entries used to contain an "Other Languages" point in the left column witch a choice of languages relevant for the user. I've extensively used it to compare various language contents, to find out the proper language spelling of terms and names or to simply get the right expression in another language.
This is no more available. Why? It reduces the usability of Wikipedia substantially.
Přemysl Janýr Přemysl Janýr (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOVH is great and should be included in more user tutorial content. Could we add more measurable information here to help readers understand the scope of the administrative state?
It would also help to address the churn rate (e.g. tenure & transition rate) of those groups to understand how representative they are in comparison to general editors at large.
he changed all kurdish battles and removed he was racist and he changed Third ararat operation was kurdish victory pls wikipedia review :Vbbanaz05 and remove his administration he was not admin he was racist 185.84.70.133 (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vbbanaz05 is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia.
Hi @Cullen328 They were constantly vandalizing the pages without any sources and their arguments were very weak, now this person is ignoring even the truth because he is a nationalist. he falsely accused me of racism because I reverted his edits when he vandalized. But I never said a single racist word in that article. [1]Vbbanaz05 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Not done for now: what specific text do you want added? DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
