User talk:PopoDameron/Archive 1

Why
I have been working on that for hours. What did I do wrong? Everything is factual. Allen High School is not 10-12. Jdh1973 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Your most recent edit appeared very likely to be vandalism (e.g. "...this was more than the other very largest...") so I undid all your edits. I see now that some of your edits do appear to be factual, so I assume that was a mistake. You can go ahead and restore the page to your second to last edit and keep working on the page if you'd like. PopoDameron (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

why did you delete my edits about a new dimension of chills? i don't understand the reason
can you explain me? 151.53.209.48 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Your edits appeared to be based on your original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. There were no sources to any of your edits. If you can find references to back up your edits, you can add them and republish your edits. PopoDameron (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rajwa Al Saif (August 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rajwa Al Saif and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Rajwa_Al_Saif Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Rajwa_Al_Saif reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Robert McClenon. That doesn't seem very fair to me considering my draft has been waiting for review for about two weeks now, and this new article was just made yesterday. My article is clearly better sourced and contains all that this one does and more, so I think it would make more sense to speedily delete the current article under WP:G6 and move the draft to the main space instead. Can an admin verify if that would be possible? I think the user who created the article had a responsibility to check for existing drafts of the article. PopoDameron (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * G6 is for uncontroversial technical and housekeeping moves. Your suggestion does not fall into this category. First, you've been around a while and you know, or should know, that unless you have an editing restriction to the contrary, you don't have to use the AFC process as an established user. You could have created this article from scratch just as did. Second, we're not going to delete a perfectly acceptable, if sparse, article and substitute yours because your feelings are somehow hurt that you didn't get into the mainspace first. There isn't an admin here who's going to do that. This doesn't require a history merge. Take your references and content, edit them into the existing article, and move on. Katietalk 14:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @KrakatoaKatie: All right, I see what you're saying. At the time when I made the article I was definitely less established and didn't know I could just make an article from scratch instead of a draft, and then didn't think I would be allowed to move it from the draft space even when I was sure I demonstrated notability. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, and I'll get to working on the main article now. PopoDameron (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:KrakatoaKatie, for clarifying my comment, "Please combine article and draft". By the way, I have removed the G7 tag from the draft, but have replaced the content of the draft with a redirect to the article.  As Katie said, this was an "ordinary" merge that doesn't require a history merge.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for that @Robert McClenon, and sorry for not agreeing with your decision initially by the way. PopoDameron (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for that @Robert McClenon, and sorry for not agreeing with your decision initially by the way. PopoDameron (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Femke (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

re speedy deletion of Builder Lynx
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... the subject is "notable" because it is a small company that competes with several other large ones Sage, Yardi, Builder Software Tools, Lasso, NEWSTAR Constellation and it "describes its subject from a neutral point of view" as described in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion section G11 Could you please clarify which language on the page you find to be non-neutral? Mucm (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. Your article lacked reliable sources and was otherwise written like an advertisement for the company. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:PROMO for more information. Thanks, PopoDameron (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi PopoDameron, with respect, WP:RS (Reliable Source) and WP:PROMO (Promotional) were not the reasons given for the proposed speedy deletion, it was Speedy Deletion section G11 "Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion". Can you please clarify which wording you found unambiguously promotional, or glowing, or even mildy positive?
 * Re: Reliable Sources, improving it in that way can be a goal for a page that deserves improvement, not speedy deletion.
 * Re: Promotional, that page lists the things that Wikipedia IS NOT, such as "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment, Opinion pieces, Scandal mongering, Self-promotion, Advertising, marketing or public relations"
 * Can you clarify which sentences, or words in the deleted page were propaganda, or scandal mongering, or such? Thank you. Mucm (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PROMO speaks directly to what WP:G11 considers for deletion. The article did not have reliable sources, and otherwise it was written listing the company's virtues, which is what an advert looks like. I personally no longer have access to the article, since it was deleted and I am not an administrator, but maybe @Athaenara can clarify this for you as they are the admin that performed the deletion and can go back to the article to cite specifics if necessary. PopoDameron (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again with respect, I would appreciate understanding how you detect "listing the company's virtues" from a simple sentence listing the name of the company, the date and city it was established, and the industry in which it operates, and the products it offers. This describes the opening paragraph of every page on every organization. Mucm (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I no longer have access to the article, but I expressly remember it containing more than a single sentence. In any case, I think it would be best for you to wait for @Athaenara to reply since they have access to the article. I would also like to ask you if you have any direct relation to this company, such as being the owner, an employee, or having any other direct link. You would be required to report being paid or compensated in any form to edit per the Wikimedia terms of service. Thanks, PopoDameron (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and I am sorry to take up your time. I'm just confused as to whether you just superficially reviewed it and suggested Speedy Deletion and assumed that the deleting editor would think it through, or Athaenara just superficially reviewed it and assumed that you had thought it through.  And yes it contained a few other sentences, all equally neutral to the one I mentioned.  Unless you can expressly remember some non-neutral words, perhaps you could withdraw your recommendation for Speedy Deletion.  Re Terms of Service, yes I have read it years ago and again recently.  I think you'd agree if you dug into them that my ~2 dozen edits going back to 2007 (albeit mostly minor), are good-faith contributions.  Cheers. Mucm (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article could easily have been speedy deleted under CSD A7; there was zero claims of significance made in the article and it in no way meets WP:ORG (or even basic WP:GNG as written). Please don't recreate it in article space. If you feel it somehow does meet WP:ORG, then I strongly suggest you use WP:AfC to create it and have a reviewer move the article if approved for publishing in mainspace.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I, as a user, went looking for an article on this company and Wikipedia said one does not exist, do I want to create one? so I did.  I read as many of the guidelines as I could but they seemed endless.  I understood that Wikipedia is a work of the community so I was just writing a starting point that could be improved by others, clearly I should have used some sort of draft process first while the notability and references get fleshed out.  In any case, I appreciate your suggestions, and it may be so that it could have been deleted by pointing to other reasons, but how can I fairly object to the Speedy Deletion if the actual reason given cannot be backed up -- which I have yet to see -- a word or phrase that is "unambiguous promotion", or "highlighting virtues", or in the least bit glowing, or even positive (or anything but neutral).  I simply tried to write this as similarly as I could (but much shorter initially) to other organization pages, e.g. Kobo Inc., neutral information on place of organization, line of business, product, history, etc.  I'm just trying to understand where the "unambiguously promotional" words were so I can avoid it in future articles. Mucm (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, PopoDameron,

I'm concerned that you are tagging articles with clear notability for deletion. Please be sure you know the different Criteria for Speedy Deletion thoroughly and know when it is appropriate to use them. If you focus in on certain areas, like politics, be sure you sure the relevant notability guidelines well. Tagging pages for deletion is something that should only be done when you have a lot of experience actually editing articles, not just doing counter vandalism work. I just encourage to spend time becoming very familiar with the policy pages devoted to different forms of deletion.

If you ever have questions about deletion or notability, please bring them to the Teahouse where more experienced editors can offer some guidance. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * P.S. Since you are already using Twinkle (which is great), you should enable Twinkle to start up deletion logs for you so you can keep watch over pages you have tagged for deletion. Just look in your Twinkle Preferences. I've been editing here regularly since 2013 and I still maintain deletion logs for CSD, PROD and XFDs and I sometimes look them over and see where I might have misjudged an article. It's useful in improving as an editor. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah all right, thanks. That's a pretty useful feature. PopoDameron (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Liz, thanks for the heads up. I see now that I definitely jumped the gun on that one, but I think I have now successfully tagged over a dozen articles for speedy deletion, and I do believe myself to be familiar with the criteria. I'm pretty sure this was my first mistake in this area. I could be forgetting another, but I generally think that my contributions in CSD have been a net positive. I totally could be wrong about that since as you know I'm pretty new here, but in any case I'll definitely be more careful in the future. Thanks again! PopoDameron (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Wing Chung
Hello, I undone your revert. I understand what you are saying about a consensus, however, a consensus isn't needed for material not sourced, which over half the list has been. Also, there is a procedure for how lists are suppose to be done, which was not known by myself not seemingly the other person on the talk page. Lists are suppose to have their own pages and be linked to. Presumably this is why the practitioners page was changed to this format as well, this also makes how lists are handled consistent within the page. Please post on the Wing Chun talk page if you have any other concerns on the format that lists within an article should take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_within_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to WhatsApp me for sources?
Star Wars nerd give me your mobile number and I will forward you reffrences
 * Heh sorry that's not how it works. If you have reliable sources, check out WP:CITE to learn how to cite them in the article yourself. PopoDameron (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to WhatsApp Me for sources, it’s very rude to remove other peoples stuff with out first massaging then directly I don’t know how to add things WhatsApp Me and we can talk and you can go through things with me? Mihalis52 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not giving you my number bud. If you want, you can read up about how to cite sources and do it yourself, or if not you can post about it on the article's talk page and people will help you out. PopoDameron (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Popo Dameron massage me and explain to me how to add and edit please and it would be kinder to massage a source first before deleting what they have contributed Mihalis52 (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Have you tried reading WP:HOWCITE yet? If you want you can just send me a link to the source here, and I'll cite it for you if it's a reliable source. PopoDameron (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A7 deletion
Educational organizations are exempt from this speedy deletion criterion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks I see, didn't know that. Definitely still think the G11 applies, though. – Popo   Dameron   talk  06:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

My 23Sept edits on Sanskrit
You left a message on my talkpage that my 23 Sept 2022 edit on Sanskrit does not have reliable citation. My edit clearly cites a reputed source ThePrint ( 58.182.190.156 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just try going to your own link: . It redirects to a seemingly random image. You probably copied the wrong website. – Popo   Dameron   talk  21:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Prague Metro
Do you have any motivation as for why the constructive edits were deemed inconstructive, other than me not being an administrator? This structure hasn't been reverted in Germany, Italy and is used in your native country the US without problems. --Assimo23 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I left a message on your talk page about that, but the reason I reverted was that part of the definition of a metro is that it is underground, so it is rather redundant to specify that in addition, especially to the short description which should be as concise as possible. Are you acting with any kind of consensus? – Popo   Dameron   talk  22:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Approving edit-warriors
Hello, I'd appreciate you not approving edit-warriors and clear infractions of our editing guidelines. Thanks. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that Throast, didn't notice the edit-warring and there didn't seem to be issue from a quick glance at the edit. – Popo   Dameron   talk  22:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ChatGPT
You can try out ChatGPT, now it will know Taliban has re-conquered afg. and the haiti earthquake 2021 8. 14 Jishiboka1 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Even so, you need a reliable source that says that. See WP:NOR for more on that. – Popo   Dameron   talk  23:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Julius Maddox
agree with your removal of the unofficial maddox lift citing source reliability. given that the lift was performed out of competition without any robust verification measures, do you reckon i'd be able to find a reliable source that recognizes the lifts? or would i be wasting my time. asking for your opinion as a more experienced editor 216.164.249.213 (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other editor who said that there shouldn't be an unofficial records table to begin with. Official records exist for a reason after all. If there were multiple genuinely reliable sources, then maybe I would change my mind about that, but certainly a youtube video wouldn't count. – Popo   Dameron   talk  17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine-tuning
Hi PopoDameron! Just a quick query; would it not be better to keep fine-tuning (physics) as just fine-tuning? It is generally what one means when referring to the topic, so it would make sense. This seems to be a overall policy on Wikipedia as far as I can tell; the (...) is reserved to whatever the secondary topic is (Say inflation versus inflation (cosmology), or correlation function and correlation function (quantum field theory). OpenScience709 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey User:OpenScience709! I can see why you might believe that the definition of fine-tuning in physics is what one generally means when referring to the topic since you seem to be very involved in that world. I am personally the same but in the world of machine learning, and I can tell you that 'fine-tuning' is a very, very common term in the field and that I don't believe it to be a secondary topic. When I Google fine-tuning now, I see around as many results that have to do with the definition in ML than the one in physics, so I think it's fair to say that both are frequently searched. Let me know if you still disagree though and I'm sure we'll figure something out! –  Popo   Dameron   talk  14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean fair. Let's leave it as is for now. If in a few months one has overwhelmingly more views than another we can reconsider, but I'm also not very fussed. OpenScience709 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, I was thinking of proposing the same idea. – Popo   Dameron   talk  20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi PopoDameron. After reviewing your request, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3APopoDameron enabled] rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

About Me
Hello I see your about me I was wondering how would I add this to my profile? Thanks! Gamazations (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, if you mean my user page, you can just go and create the page User:Gamazations and write a bit about yourself there. Hope that helps! Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  05:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How do I add stuff like citizenship, gender, linguistics, cerficiation and such as you have in your about me and preferences. Thanks! Gamazations (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are called userboxes (or 'userboxen' depending on who you ask). There are thousands of them, and you can even make your own. You can find a gallery with all kinds of boxes at Userboxes/Galleries, and of course feel free to copy ones you like directly from other people's userpages. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  05:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for the heads up. I am familiarizing myself with wikipedia right now, and I am basically a new user. Also, could you recommend some resources that could help me improve my ability to edit and write articles on wikipedia?
 * P.S. I like your username :)
 * I wrote this previously on my talk page before realizing that you wanted me to respond on your talk page, sorry about that.

FlyingOctopusFish (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * FlyingOctopusFish Heheh, thanks.
 * Yeah, you might find some of the links on the welcome template helpful. I'll drop it on your talk page. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  22:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * FlyingOctopusFish Oh also if you reply to people outside of their talk page, make sure to tag them using something like .  Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  22:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. The tagging is similar to the pinging system on discord, so on visual editing it would use "@". I just realized I can only use the on source edit. Thanks anyways. FlyingOctopusFish (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, PopoDameron. Thank you for your work on Mamba (deep learning). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   04:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Comma in a compound predicate
Would work? I feel like without a comma, the sentence sounds too wordy and awkward. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was considering changing it to that. Would definitely work fine. popo dameron  ⁠ talk  23:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi PopoDameron. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for maintenance so that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
 * Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
 * Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your help. It is well appreciated

Never17 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
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, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, 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, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, 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, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, 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, , and , 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, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, 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, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, 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, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see 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:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from ExclusiveEditor
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § ‎AI for WP guidelines/ policies. Exclusive Editor Notify Me! 15:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reinforcement learning from human feedback
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reinforcement learning from human feedback you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reinforcement learning from human feedback
The article Reinforcement learning from human feedback you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Reinforcement learning from human feedback and Talk:Reinforcement learning from human feedback/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)