User talk:ParticularEvent318

Hello, ParticularEvent318, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• How to avoid a conflict of interest

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ObserveOwl (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I moved your vote on

extended confirmed, which is a requirement for adding a vote to the support, oppose, or neutral sections as indicated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello ParticularEvent318. I just noticed your comment on the RfA talk page, and saw that your signature is a bit difficult to read. Could you please make the colour darker so that there is sufficient contrast with the background? You can use this link contrast checker to help find a suitable colour. Thanks in advance! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 22:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finished! - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 22:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, PE318. Let's discuss. Maybe you can tell me why you're objecting to this? Valereee (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Yes, and I have something to talk about the implementation of extended confirmed users on RFA. Its that I must be extended confirmed to vote in RFA. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 21:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And you object to that why? Valereee (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After I voted in n RFA due to being auto confirmed, another user decided that I need to be extended confirmed to edit in RFA. I never realized that a lot in RFA has changed in terms of rules and policies. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 21:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have to be EC to give a support/oppose at RfA. And you're objecting: why? Valereee (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I’m objecting this because I wanted to create a reversal on Proposal 14, since I have a viewpoint that does not agree on how Proposal 14 should be implemented and what that proposer believed in was not in my interest. After reading the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements, I was not surprised about the implementation of the policy. Although many users have supported this proposal, one of the Wikipedia bureaucrats, Xaosflux, oppose this proposal and said on this page, “Don't think we should disenfranchise contributors from participating in discussions based on this. It's not a vote.” He has a great point on this proposal, since it discourages experienced editors from voting on RFA when making a proper reason. And besides to that, I agree with his viewpoint on the proposal, it can’t to fair otherwise. Even the auto-confirmed users such as ones that make normal edits, have contributed well on this Wikipedia. This is it. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 21:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to open a new RfC, but I'd definitely recommend you not do so. You are very new here. There is a ton to understand, see

WP:P&G

and all its links (and the links its links link to), which should take you a few months to get through. An editor with 33 edits is unfortunately much more likely to embarrass themselves than to actually create an RfC that goes anywhere. I'm sorry that this probably sounds harsh.

The basic reason the community decided to limit opposes/supports in RfA is that editors with fewer than 500 edits tend not to actually have much to contribute that is helpful. They're unlikely to have had meaningful interaction with the candidate or to know how to assess a candidate. Often they just get caught up in the excitement and want to participate.

Just as a for instance, I see that you've had zero interaction with Goldsztajn, but at their RfA you wrote "This can make you a great administrator! Also, you are well aware about the core principles of Wikipedia". How did you come to this conclusion? Valereee (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Just to be clear and fair, it was very random to me to vote at RFA when things have changed a lot in terms of policies and proposals. I went there since it was actively open and few users went to RFA for becoming a administrator. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 22:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sure what you mean by "few users went to RFA for becoming a administrator". Or "I went there since it was actively open" for that matter. And you started editing a week ago, things haven't changed since then. I'm confused. Can you clarify? Valereee (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to, but I understand the support on Proposal 14 after reading the RFA review from 2024. What I mean that few users went to RFA means to become an administrator is that according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year and by month, the amount and quantity of RFA nominations in later years are lower than in earlier years except for 2024, which is 54 of course. For example, in 2005-2007, there were about 600-920 RFAs nominated, but in 2021, the nominations were only 11 of these. I noticed a decrease if RFAs each year since the 2010s. I made a vote here in 2025 because, RFA happens once in a while and on such occasions, unlike the 2000s. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 23:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many fewer RfAs than in the past. But PE318, that is not because there aren't enough people supporting/opposing. It's because there aren't enough candidates. The community decided that supports/opposes from editors who were very new wasn't helping the process. That's why they settled on requiring EC. Make a few hundred more constructive edits, and you'll be able to participate in the next one. But please: do so thoughtfully, based on your own interactions with the candidate or on your assessment of their contributions. Valereee (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you could really have a valid point on this. But why were there so many candidates in 2005-2007? Is this because of early development of Wikipedia? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 23:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The

by month chart Valereee notes shows a trend that is never going to be reversed. If you think of Wikipedia as a product; all products have a lifecycle. Wikipedia, in its infancy, had a very empty canvas that needed to be painted. Lots of new editors had all sorts of opportunities to create new articles, new structures, new management processes, etc. With ~7 million articles now, there isn't much room now for creating new articles. We've spent 20 years building structures and management processes. The less there is for people to create, the less engagement you are likely to have. It's inevitable. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has tried to reverse this trend, not understanding the realities of this lifecycle. Think of it this way; mobile phones started becoming all the rage 25 years ago. There was a wide open market. All sorts of vendors sprang up to take advantage of this new market. There were engineering firms to create the networks, there were manufacturers to make the phones, there were carriers who sold the services, etc. The market was positively booming with all sorts of new, with explosive growth. A market that hadn't existed 10 years before suddenly exploded into existence. Now, 25 years on, almost everyone has a mobile phone. There's no new market to explode into, no new networks that have to be built from the ground up, no new manufacturers that have to spin up fast to meet demand. When 95% of the market is saturated, there's no room for growth. You can't reverse that trend. You can't take everyone's mobile phone away and then re-ignite the explosive growth. Wikipedia is the same. Wikipedia is well past its heyday, and that's never going to change. Allowing non-EC editors to vote at RfA will have no impact on that. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hammersoft @Valereee How does allowing non-EC editors to vote at RfA will have no impact on the RFA compared to newer editors? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 20:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify your question? Valereee (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I need to see the difference between autoconfirmed users voting in RFA and extended confirmed users voting in RFA. While I was reading the reply post from Hammersoft, I noticed the last sentence, saying that non-EC users lacking an impact. The thing I discovered is all products have a lifecycle and the trend is never going to be reversed. That’s it though. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 09:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly do that research; enable Preferences>Gadgets>Nav popups and that information is visible by hovering over a username. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Bonadea. An edit that you recently made to Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. .

In case you actually thought that your edit improved the article, you must take much greater care. The punctuation mark you removed is necessary for the sentence to make sense. bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 19:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and I'd advise you to only reply to a message if you have something actually useful to add to the discussion. JavaHurricane 11:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, but I think of replies. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 19:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ParticularEvent318! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Expanding articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both talk) 03:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply ]

I found out. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 06:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ParticularEvent318! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Tea?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both talk) 03:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply ]