User talk:AmandaNP

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Amanda. Occasionally, DeltaQuadBot requests manual review of a possible F5 deletion (example). Could you also make it remove the tag once the deletion has occurred (example)?

I appreciate that the current state of affairs may be because it needs an administrator to really confirm that they've reviewed it, but I think that when a deletion has occurred (and there isn't any action on the file apart from that), that can be taken as a review. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

For block info, would it be advisable to change the length from "infinity" to "indefinite"? Users are blocked indefinitely, and not infinitely. I feel like that would help support WP:Indefinite is not infinite. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I wanted to ask an admin a quick question to make sure I'm not going too crazy and I picked you! Currently I am organising an RfC about whether or not to use DMY or MDY on the new pope's Wikipedia page. One of the main arguments for using MDY is MOS:DATERET, which states the following:

If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page.

However, considering that DATERET can be overridden by a consensus, I have argued that it should not be considered a reasonable argument in the RfC. This is because the RfC itself is where the consensus is formed, so it is circular thinking to use it as an argument for keeping the page as MDY.

Do you agree with me that these arguments should not be included in the consensus, as they unfairly preference MDY? I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you for your time. JacobTheRox (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]