Hey I saw you put a QD on it and wait was added (in an odd way, but there). No talk page comments were made but I think it is simple enough now if you would want to remove your QD. I did just link it to the wikidata item. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da đ!09:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miam Charitable Trust is a nonprofit organisation, and added all source refernce, but wikipedia says  :
An editor has asked for deletion of this article. The nominator's reason for doing this is: Contested quick deletion ('A4-notability'); let's do a regular RfD. So what do people think? Keep, delete?
You may join the discussion to give your opinion on this request. Please do not remove this notice or empty this page during the discussion. You are welcome to edit this page and improve it. If you want more information, please read Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Hello, MathXplore. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience. You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Hello, Tristin Mays is no clear case of 'copied from another Wikipedia'. I therefore declined the QD, please nominate it for deletion, if you think the page should be deleted. Eptalon (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on your Simple Wiktionary RfA, I'm sure you'll make a good admin there. I've said this before, but I will say it again - in the future, I do think you should consider an RfA here as well. You would definitely have my support and I think your VIP reports and QD log show very good understanding of admin policy. You do a lot for this wiki and I have no doubt we would benefit from you being an admin. If you need a nomination in the future, I am happy to offer you one. But for now, congrats for the successful RfA you just had :) --Ferien (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to nominate/co-nominate you for adminship as well. You do a great job here and I see plenty of occasions when you do need the tools. Congrats on the Wiktionary RfA! â *FehufangÄ âź â Talk page01:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, evaluations are welcome, but I just started learning new things in this week. I would like to revisit this agenda after a reasonable amount of time. MathXplore (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnât consider it hat collecting on this wiki. We need more active admins since some of the older ones are on sporadically. Iâm not trying to push you, just know you have my support when it happens. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da đ!02:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no technical evidence at simplewiki to claim that our current admins are on sporadically. This will need fact-checks. Thank you for the feedback. MathXplore (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, that's not all. You're a well rounded editor with lots of experience in content creation (what we should focus on), administrative areas (as mentioned above), and, most importantly, have a clue, have a history, and are not a jerk. I think adminship is a natural progression for you. Justarandomamerican (t âą c) 03:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time is not enough to invalidate all previous discussions. For discussions heavily depending on previous MediaWiki versions, deleted templates/modules, closed projects, etc. then time would be an important factor, but that is not the case in this discussion. Nobody has provided a compelling objection or withdrawn their previous statements. Therefore, the previous discussions will remain valid. If we are going to continue, we must start from where we left last time, and then we can move on to the next phase. I already know that things outside this project has changed a lot. But at here, I only know that edit counts just changed. If changes at here cannot be sufficiently explained, then we should assume that there are no changes. MathXplore (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, I think 1+1 just clicked in my head. Would it be anything related to why I got so upset before I got hit with the block? For reference Special:Diff/8375611. I know I saw at one point someone used it as a reference to turn in and leave simple for the same reasons. If I did anything to you, please let me know so I can apologize. It has been a while with a lot going on so I have forgotten a lot. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da đ!06:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-RFA discussions
Since 3 months have passed since the opening of this thread, I would like to revisit this agenda. I request involved admins to answer my questions. MathXplore (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My activity has decreased lately, particularly on other projects, but not to the point where I would be unable to start an RfA nomination. --Ferien (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the community's acceptance of externally influenced RFAs
This whole thread started soon after the Simple English Wiktionary's RFA. It is clear that this discussion is being influenced by external factors. I know that some projects have statements about external adminships.
m:Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_requesting_adminship says that "If a candidate is not already a local administrator or holder of advanced permissions on a Wikimedia content project, they are less likely to pass a request for adminship at Meta.".
However, I don't see anything like this in WP:CFA. Recently, multiple editors have protested against the external influences toward the adminstration of Simple English Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_155#Deletion_review). How can our community accept the influences of other RFAs when they are radically different from Wikipedia's standards? I look forward to hearing from you. MathXplore (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that having you become an administrator on this project would be an external influence to administration here, as you are most active on this Wikipedia. It just happens that you received other rights first, before getting adminship here. --Ferien (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a concerns as long as you think you can keep up with things. But seeing your activity here this shouldn't be that big of an issue. I just think of it as extra buttons that help you with your work. BRP ever13:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what BRPever said. Your activity hasn't decreased, you have stayed around with this project for years now. I wouldn't consider it hat collecting, but I'd also add that other editors have gone to nominate you for these rights. It isn't like you have gone around and asked for many rights without having a need for them â and in this scenario, you have a need in my opinion. --Ferien (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking this question with respect to your previous statements at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Patroller/Archives/2022. In general, I recognize that the standard procedure to restore removed permissions is to restart the same RFP as well as before, and then move on to the next phase. How can we justify skipping RFPs and move on to further requests? In other words, what kind of local factors have changed your previous decision? MathXplore (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... This is an easy question imo. For rights that admins grant, it's them who decide if you are ready or not. For rights that are aquired through community vote, it's community. The answer lies on whether the community trusts you with the bits you are requesting or not. If you demonstrate substantial improvement since that period, there won't likely be any problems. BRP ever13:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I currently recognize that your suggestion comes from QD/VIP actions. However, we have many editors active in this area, but I'm not sure if you have made the same suggestion to all of them. If there are any other factors for your decision, please explain them. In other words, what are the local differences between me and other editors working in the same way (QD/VIP etc.)? MathXplore (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative work on this wiki doesn't have a load of variety, and primarily consists of WP:VIP, WP:RFD, CAT:QD and WP:AN work. You are active in all of those venues already, and maybe a little less at WP:RFD (but not to the extent that it's a problem in applying for adminship). There are also occasionally things that pop up on the mailing list, Category:Requests for unblock and Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, but these don't happen often and not all admins get involved in that sort of work. I wouldn't offer to nominate you for adminship if I didn't think the work you currently did would be improved with adminship, and in this case I think your work speaks for itself. --Ferien (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your time in answering this question, but I'm unsure if the works on this wiki don't have a lot of variety. Of course, we are smaller than enwiki, etc., so the level of variety would be lower than theirs, but I believe that unnoticed (or rarely noticed) necessary works may exist. I want to fully describe my concerns in the next phase. This question is answered and  Done. MathXplore (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember I had some discussion with Operator873 and Ferien back then. It was a long time ago so my memories are vague, but the concern Ferien brought about you making some pages that needed more work or tags as patrolled. To me, at that time, the concerns seem fair. It has been a long time since then and I am unaware if Ferien still holds those concerns or not. I have talked with some admins about asking you to run for adminship a few times, to which they seem rather unconcerned. Not sure if that was Ferien or someone else. BRP ever13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I spoke about this with BRPever before, in fact I am one of the admins he spoke to about asking you to run for adminship, and there was the issue before about leaving pages in a state that wasn't patrollable, that is no longer the case. While you don't really go around creating new articles so wouldn't be a usual candidate for patroller, you patrol lots and lots of new pages to the extent I probably wouldn't be worried about the autopatrol side of things, and you'd probably be fine to get that right now. As I noted briefly above, patroller isn't a prerequisite to adminship, and should the community vote you as an admin, that wouldn't be a reversal of the decision at Requests for patroller back in 2022. As Operator873 said then, By no means is this a disciplinary or a negative action against you. and I have always considered that to be the case. --Ferien (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I generally recognize that RFPs and RFRRs don't belong to the same direction, it is true that many wikis don't have RFA requirements based on user rights status. Other admins and editors are welcome to comment on this matter on here or in the next phase. MathXplore (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Follow-up questions from others are also welcomed, but please allow User:Fehufanga to answer first)
Some of my anti-vandalism efforts are connected with deleted/oversighted revisions. If anyone has a question about such cases, would you be interested in briefly explaining them via e-mail (or other off-wiki communication methods, of course by complying to NDA restrictions)? If you cannot answer here, you can also answer this to me by e-mail. MathXplore (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MathXplore. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience. You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
(Follow-up questions from others are also welcomed, but please allow involved admins to answer first. However, I don't know who is actually invovled here. Anyone who wants to answer this question should disclose their involvement or non-involvement)
Previously, User:DRC-B5 has declared that few things is there I need to experience (special:diff/8603729). However, I don't think they have explained how many things are remaining, and I don't remember about hearing the details of their expectations (at least I was never pinged to such statements). In your opinions, what has been expected by User:DRC-B5, and what has been cleared in the recent years? MathXplore (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only this question has remained unanswered, so I will forward this to the next phase for the community's attention and further information. Anyone who knows anything about this are welcome to leave comments. MathXplore (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was just someone trying to get back at you for spotting them as a sock. They didnât specify what the issues were they felt you needed to work on so I see it as a non-starter. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da đ!07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of my questions here have been answered with reasonable explanations, so I think it is OK to go forward. @Ferien, BRPever, and Fehufanga: any of you can start the RFA at your own timing, I will catch up later and provide my initial statements soon after the start. Thank you for taking time to the pre-RFA discussion. MathXplore (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I would use it in the future, but I think having assistants like these would be good for all. Thank you for the information. MathXplore (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyas Math! So I have two items that I hope you will help with.
I am randomly picking normal, experienced editors to help start up phases of my project. I need a small easy to do category for editors to work for Phase II of Total Backlog Annihilation. It should be something easy as we are going to work towards the longer and harder stuff, so I am using baby steps to help with this. I was thinking something in the lines of fixing general stubs categories to put them in a more specific stub or get the articles without stubs and get them stub under the threshold for not being a stub, or anything else you can think of.
When people post to your page, I see you have a page notice. How can I invoke mine? I have the page notice created but do not know how to link it.
(About your project) Greetings. I'm not sure if I have enough time to take care of all the stubs, but I hope to help with stubs being the specific ones. I used to be working in this area, and I look forward to helping the stub template replacement to specific stubs when applicable. I wish you the success of your project. MathXplore (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MathXplore. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience. You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Helo MathXplore,
your request for adminship was successful, and accordingly, I have granted you the flag. Please send me an e-mail, so that I can add you to the admin mailing list.
Congratulations, and welcome to the team... Eptalon (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations @MathXplore! My vote was removed because I'm new on simple.wikipedia but you had and have my support. When I do edit here occasionally, I hope to see you mopping around. Cleo Cooper (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
careful not to mop too much! Becoming admin means getting to use the mop! Careful not to mop too much though... â Angerxiety!
If you want to install scripts to your userspace, you can do that by yourself with providing attribution. If you want to install scripts to the MediaWiki namespace (just like Wikipedia:Twinkle, etc.), please discuss with the community. Once there is consensus, bureaucrats, interface admins, or global interface editors can complete the installation to the MediaWiki namespace. Please note that simplewiki does not have interface admins, so only bureaucrats will handle interface admin tasks. MathXplore (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MathXplore why did you protect your user page for only admins You do realize you don't own your talk page and that every one has the right to edit the page. 199.119.30.216 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has the right to edit articles, that is our scope. User pages are not articles, and WP:OWN is not a reason for unprotection. Talk pages (except archives) should be open for communication, other pages are not for communication, so it is OK for them to be protected. MathXplore (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MathXplore (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
