User Talk: NYC Guru

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{talkpage}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:NYC Guru/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 400K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}

April 29: WikiWednesday NYC Salon

{|style="border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|April 29: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ↗
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" |
thumb|right|Prime Produce ↗ on W 54th St ↗

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC ↗ community for our '''WikiWednesday Salon ↗''' at Prime Produce ↗ in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

Featuring this salon, a facilitated discussion on Wikidata ↗, notability ↗, and GLAM ↗!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct ↗ and Photography Policy ↗.

Meeting info:

Wednesday, April 29 '''WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ↗ (optional RSVP on-wiki ↗)'''.

:''6:00 pm – 7:00 pm'' (Open Hour)

:''7:00 pm – 9:00 pm'' (Wiki Salon)

: (Prime Produce ↗, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗)

: Also online via Zoom ↗

|}
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list ↗.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team ↗ via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Admin Election

thumb|Edit counts of successful RfA candidates (2007-2021) ↗
Hi NYC Guru. It's great that you want to stand in the admin election, but an editor with slightly less than 2k edits will not succeed. I would suggest withdrawing and focusing on building up your wiki resume so that you can maybe run for admin when you're qualified. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 14:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC) 
:{{ping|voorts}} The election page clearly said the extendedconfirmed editors qualify for a campain page. Do you have an edit count in mind? Whatever happens I'm willing to let it run its course and see if this finished better then the last time i tried. Thanks for your advice. NYC Guru (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::Admin candidates rarely succeed with less than 10K edits. This chart goes through 2021, but the trend has remained the same over the past 5yrs. Candidates with 8-10K edits are sometimes accepted if they are exceptional in other areas, but per voorts, someone with <2K edits should definitely wait to gain some more experience. We hope to see you back at RfA or admin elections in the future! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes. There is technically no minimum other than EC, but in practice, anyone with less than 10k edits won't succeed (except, as VP notes, rarely an editor with >8k will succeed). voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 15:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::The banner does say that, but that is just a minimum bound: it's not that every extended-confirmed editor could pass RfA/AELECT, it's that everyone who has passed them for a ''long'' time has been extended-confirmed. As you can see from the chart on the right, the last person to pass RfA with an edit count around the same as yours was {{noping|GoldenRing}}, and his RfA ↗ was contentious. That was in 2017, almost a decade ago, and even then it was viewed as ''sui generis ↗''. Consider the following passages from WP:RFAADVICE ↗:
::<blockquote>While the formal minimum qualification for requesting the administrator user permissions is being an extended confirmed ↗ user (your account is both 30 days old and with 500 edits made) – in practice, few RfAs will be successful without at least 10,000 edits and a year of demonstrable experience. Most experienced nominators will recommend users to meet this qualifications before running, stating that this is as a ''minimum qualification'' if you want a chance at succeeding.[...]A self-nomination usually prompts the community to examine the candidate's judgement. '''If you do not satisfy the three preceding items, nominating yourself will be seen as exhibiting questionable judgement''', and can result in receiving opposition on that alone.</blockquote>
::Sadly, the odds are really not in your favour here, and I'd also suggest withdrawal. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 15:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::That was implemented mainly because new users would be tempted to request admin rights, only to then immediately be turned away. Experienced users would now know not to request admin rights until they had at least a couple years experience with over several thousand edits. Therefore, as a non-admin, I would suggest withdrawal too. JuniperChill (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::I simply do not see this working out in any way, respectfully. See WP:Snowball ↗ (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:I would also suggest withdrawing. The candidate with the lowest edit count to pass recently was Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Sohom Datta ↗, 7,735 edits, AELECT date Oct 2024. I'm afraid that with you only having 1,875 edits, that you are not close enough to that to have a pleasant AELECT experience. You can always participate in a future AELECT, of course. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::Also note that Sohom presented a special case. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 17:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:I'll also gently suggest withdrawing here. With less than 1,800 total edits, less than 600 to mainspace, and with 40% of your edits being <20 bytes, the questions/discussion/general defense of your case for adminship you'll face through AELECT may not be worth your time at the moment. '''The''' '''Kip''' (contribs ↗) 20:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, NYC Guru! You may want to read Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates ↗ if you haven't already. Valereee (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I wasn't going to comment, then looked at the nomination page again and it seemed different. Additional language was added after NYC Guru made their intention known. Adding the needed information and definition improves the wording, but at the time NYC announced the language read: "The only requirement is that you be extended-confirmed on the English Wikipedia; however, the community's expectations of administrators are much higher." NYC's candidacy came when this was clearly an open nomination, and if NYC feels a call to become an admin, and is willing to run the gauntlet, then I wish them good luck and a good learning curve. All they're asking for is to have a turn at bat. To be quizzed and answer the questions. Hopefully capitalizing "I" in proofread answers which they should take some time to write - without AI of course (I wonder if an AI could fool us to become an admin, kind of a WikiTuring Test). And NYC should be questioned unmercifully, because to win the admin game he has to hit it out of the park (I was there once, in the perfect seat to witness it, see Dave Nicholson ↗). When NYC announced, all Wikipedian candidates were guaranteed some time in the batting cage to face some of the league's best pitchers. By the way, talking of low edit counts, who was the admin in 2008 who had less than 100 edits? Sounds like a good story. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

:There's a unanimity of voice here that you should withdraw. I'll add my voice to that. I do want to point out that being an administrator also means being able to onboard input from others and act with that knowledge in mind. When ''everyone'' is telling you to withdraw here, you're not only enforcing the idea that you're not willing to onboard knowledge, but that you've learned nothing in the time since your failed, dramatically premature RfA from over three years ago ↗. If ever you wish to have the admin toolset, you are actively harming yourself by continuing with this attempt now. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
::Not unanimity, if NYC wishes to go ahead they have a clear right to do so. I won't advise either way. Have just read the link to the first nomination and found NYC's answers pretty good. I didn't read the many oppose comments but will get to those at some point, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I agree with Randy, any further editors who agree with the above need not reply here, else this will just turn into a pile on ↗. They likely get the message by now. 11WB (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

{{ping|11WB|Randy Kryn|hammersoft|The Kip|JuniperChill}}
While I appreciate your advice, I’ve decided let this run its course. After all, I really have nothing to lose and if this does fail I’ll still be able to continue editing. Also many of you are advising me to withdraw based ''only'' on the fact I have less than 2000 edits. I’ve answered the 1st 3 questions as best I can and I made it clear that I don’t get the time to edit as much as most people who go through this process. If you’re claiming I’ll waste your time, think how long it takes to vote -- 2 minutes?

Being I’m a New Yorker I take inspiration from the following:

Eric Adams ↗ was advised to resign as mayor during his term, yet he served his whole term despite the pressure.

Curtis Sliwa ↗ ran for mayor in 2021 then governor in 2025 despite knowing his election didn’t have much support. Yet he let his campaign run until Election Day. He might have lost but he made an effort. — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by NYC Guru (talk • contribs ↗) 18:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

::Regarding adding my name to this comment, please reread my posts. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@NYC Guru, I didn't actually give my opinion here. Best of luck to you anyhow. 11WB (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hey there, @NYC Guru. As another New Yorker, it's always a pleasure to meet other people from NYC on WP. That being said, though, I would advise that being receptive to others' feedback is one quality of a good administrator. Admins often have to evaluate tough decisions when assessing consensus. Supposing that you were to become an admin, if there are highly experienced editors who agree on one thing, and then you do something else completely, that might not reflect well. This is just something worth thinking about. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
:::In this case NYC seems to be assessing consensus correctly. The editors asking them not to run are using "I don't like it" arguments while those saying 'go ahead if you want to, why not?' are using the language used in the nomination rules. Still interested in who was admined in 2008 with less than 100 edits, sounds like a good story or backstory. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I disagree with the "I don't like it" comment. The editors who have left messages here have highlighted how recent RfAs and AELECTs have gone. The first reply ↗ from @Voorts acknowledged the EC threshold. Going ahead with something unwaveringly despite the voices of many suggesting to change course is intrepid. 11WB (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::...but still within the rules. Intrepid means "Fearless; bold; brave", maybe good traits for an admin, maybe not, depending on the person. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
::::{{smalldiv|1=@Randy Kryn, the person who passed RfA with less than 100 edits would seem to be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth ↗. In that case, they had a very specialized use case for the tools (editing a fully protected page), were already an admin on another wiki, and promised not to use the tools for any purpose other than that one specific use case. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)}}
:::::Thanks {{u|Epicgenius}}. I wasn't making a comparison with NYC's case, just interested upon noticing it on the graph provided above. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
::::"I don't like it" was not my reason. My reason is that NYC Guru is wasting their time (not mine) and will be subjecting themselves to intense scrutiny for no reason. I don't think you should be encouraging someone to submit themselves to the RfA process, given that you, @Randy Kryn, know how brutal the process can be on people. All of that said, NYC Guru is free to ignore all of our advice, as bad an idea as that is. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 17:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Voorts}}, I am not encouraging NYC to run or not to run, he said he wants to and I encouraged editors to throw their best questions and comments at him during the process. No, I never ran for admin or had an interest in doing so. This is an open nomination, NYC knows the lay of the land, has been reminded of it in this conversation, and still wants a learning curve. O-blige him. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, thanks for putting your name forward. Have you explored alternative ways of helping out more with administrative tasks? At WP:PERM ↗ there is a list of permissions you can request, including WP:rollback ↗ and WP:Pending changes reviewer ↗ that can help you build experience for adminship. I'm afraid I just join the chorus in saying adminship is too early for you. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

:@NYC Guru, there's about 6 hours to go until the discussions open. I am going to echo the many, many other voices here and strongly urge you to consider stepping back from this election. The advice @Femke gave above is extremely helpful and would be a step toward building up the experience necessary to successfully request adminship in the future. 11WB (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

::@11WB, the discussion phase actually opens on 8 May. That being said, @NYC Guru, my comment above may not have been direct enough, so I'll say it more directly. Listening to your fellow editors, and withdrawing now, is a sign that you are willing to take feedback, and will help you in a future RfA. You're free to stay in the election, but if the community perceives that you are obstinate by not withdrawing, it can hurt a future RfA when you ''do'' gain enough experience to becone qualified. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:::I realised that not longer after replying. This gives them a bit longer to withdraw before discussion actually starts. 11WB (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

::::I seriously doubt they will withdraw, unfortunately. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcoming people before they edit

Hello, I've noticed that you've been welcoming people before they edit; but this is generally bad practice. For one, most new accounts don't edit, and being pinged (note that email notifications for talk page messages are enabled by default) can be annoying. Another thing to consider is we don't want to welcome users who are only here to vandalize ↗, doing so may lead them to want to vandalize further, and can even be an incentive ↗ for them. Finally, while most of your welcome messages avoid this issue, many of the welcome templates specifically mention the user's contributions; which can then confuse them if they read it, think they made a contribution, but actually did not. Cheers! – LuniZunie(talk) 18:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:I should also mention this is currently subject to a global RFC ↗ that can be seen here ↗. – LuniZunie(talk) 18:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC) 
{{ping|LuniZunie}} well I’ll have to limit my welcoming to those that edit. I’ve been doing it so if they see the welcome message they’ll find information on what to do and use the links to edit within guidelines. Interestingly I got an automatic welcome message when I first logged into commons image wiki.

It’s kind of unfortunate a lot of them vandalize and get blocked, though. --NYC Guru (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:Per Special:Diff/1352055853 ↗. It's not, it is meant to reflect on you. Just the same that you aren't allowed to edit another users comment even if it is just a typo, it's the exact same here. – LuniZunie(talk) 00:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Candidate Instructions

<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF; padding: 0.5em 1em 0 1em;" role="article">
right|80px ↗
Thank you for choosing to run in the May 2026 administrator elections ↗. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

{{Administrator elections/Header/daterange|May 2026|pollsetupbegin|pollsetupend}}: Housekeeping phase ('''we are here''')

{{Administrator elections/Header/daterange|May 2026|discbegin|discend}}: Discussion phase

{{Administrator elections/Header/daterange|May 2026|begin|end}}: SecurePoll voting phase

Scrutineering phase

All times are in UTC. The first date in the range starts at {{Administrator election time|start}}, and the last date in the range ends at {{Administrator election time|end}}. So for example, the Discussion phase opens on {{Administrator elections status/data|May 2026|discbegin}} at {{Administrator election time|start}} UTC, and ends on {{Administrator elections status/data|May 2026|discend}} at {{Administrator election time|end}} UTC.

We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from {{Administrator elections/Header/daterange|May 2026|discbegin|discend}}. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship ↗ (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On {{#time:j M|{{Administrator elections status/data|May 2026|begin}}}}, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll ↗ software to vote, which uses a secret ballot ↗. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your vote total during the election.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which does not have an exact end date, but typically takes a few days to a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page ↗ (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page ↗. In order to be granted adminship, you must receive at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ↗ ("{{-'}}crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page ↗. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the May 2026 administrator elections.
</div> Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs ↗) 00:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{You've got mail|subject=|ts=04:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)}}
''toby'' (t)(c ↗)(''rw'' ↗) 04:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcoming people

Hi NYC Guru. I see the section above, but I have a more general point.

I think you're doing a good thing welcoming people. It lets them know that there's a community behind the scenes, that we do appreciate new editors, that help is available, and where to find information on how we do things. That's why, as you noted above, Commons has a bot welcome every new user. The point up above was that en.wiki doesn't do that, in large part because they may not wind up editing (or editing in good faith), but the welcome templates page ↗ includes some ↗ for people who've made problematic edits. Beyond that issue, opinions differ on what kind of welcome is most appreciated; there are some very lightweight welcome templates that are basically invitations to the Teahouse, and there's a WMF mentorship program, which some people prefer to a list of policy links, but overall I'm in the "welcome them" camp, and I was thrilled to be welcomed myself and used the template to look things up for a while. I also like to use the oldschool templates with lots of links like :Template:Welcomeh ↗, because that's what I got and found useful.

But why I really came here was this in response to the question about why you want to be an admin: {{tq|I would deal with new editors in a more friendly way and educate them on how to properly edit where many new editors get blocked without warning.}} I think that's wonderful. The community can really use friendly people who explain things to newbies. We have a lot of policies, guidelines, customary ways of doing things, and unusual uses of words ("notable", "consensus"), and we attract new editors from all over the world, of all backgrounds and ages. Any help explaining things is useful. And you don't have to be an admin to do it. Although if you get a reputation as the helpful, patient person who knows how things work and what some guideline lawyerese actually means, that would go a long way toward bolstering your reputation before you possibly decide to run again. Please proceed :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

May 27: WikiWednesday NYC Salon, focus on wiki+law school and wiki+ai

{|style="border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|May 27: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ↗
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" |
thumb|right|Prime Produce ↗ on W 54th St ↗

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC ↗ community for our '''WikiWednesday Salon ↗''' at Prime Produce ↗ in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

Featuring this salon, a presentation on on whether Wikipedia can replace law school. And also, a facilitated group discussion on the proper place of AI in the wiki-verse.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct ↗ and Photography Policy ↗.

Meeting info:

Wednesday, May 27 '''WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ↗ (optional RSVP on-wiki ↗)'''.

:''6:00 pm – 7:00 pm'' (Open Hour)

:''7:00 pm – 9:00 pm'' (Wiki Salon)

: (Prime Produce ↗, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗)

: Also online via Zoom ↗

|}
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list ↗.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team ↗ via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry

I’m sorry about the way you were treated by editors I think (or at least thought) should have known better. I hope you return to Wikipedia, but if not (totally understandable) I wish you the best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
:To whatever extent my question ↗ added to the pile-on, I also want to apologize directly for myself. I read each candidate's nominations, then wrote comments and questions before the discussion period began. Had several other editors gone forward, I likely would have asked a similar question of them. I did read some of the posts on your talkpage, but was thinking of myself as an individual and did not think of the cumulative effect. Rjjiii (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:Let me also extend my regrets that your nomination was such an unpleasant experience, and my hope you'll return to editing at some point in the future. --JBL (talk ↗) 19:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
:I hope to see you return too in the future, but I'll echo the above and say it is completely understandable if you don't. Wishing you well. – LuniZunie(talk) 02:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:Return when you feel you should volunteer something to Wikipedia. If you are bummed about your fellow Wikipedians giving you the business just remember how many of them there were compared to the vastness of the editor corps. Drop in the bucket. As for the administrator thing, not "winning" a blessing in disguise? Let me mention, however, that if you become involved in the New York City Wikipedia community you will find it full of bright, intelligent, and fun people. That would be my suggestion, go to one of their meetups and you'll see what I mean. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::
{{ping|Randy Kryn}} im sorry I haven’t been able to contribute to Wikipedia lately. My edit history has been occasional at best over recent years and I only tested the admin election because I had over 1500 edits at the time. Hopefully the Summer will give me more time to edit nowadays that im settled in my new apartment after having moved due to a neighbor’s fire. --NYC Guru (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
:Hi, thanks for the ping. You know there's nothing to be sorry about, we all do Wikipedia when we do Wikipedia. Everyone at their own rate. You took the punches like a champ, nice work. Yeah, you may enjoy a New York City meetup if you haven't gone to one yet. The city has a pretty big group of Wikipedians. [EDIT: whoops, just saw the NY meet up announcement under this section.] Randy Kryn (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

{{ping|randy Kryn}} Don't worry. I just started editing again now that I'm settled into my new place. --NYC Guru (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

June 24: WikiWednesday NYC Salon, Pride Month Edition

{|style="border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|June 24: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ↗
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" |
thumb|right|Prime Produce ↗ on W 54th St ↗

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC ↗ community for our '''WikiWednesday Salon ↗''' at Prime Produce ↗ in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

This month's salon is a special Pride Month ↗ edition. Help us contribute to the Wiki Loves Pride ↗ global campaign and discuss how we can better represent LGBTQ+ issues on Wikimedia platforms.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct ↗ and Photography Policy ↗.

Meeting info:

Wednesday, June 24 '''WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ↗ (optional RSVP on-wiki ↗)'''.

:''6:00 pm – 7:00 pm'' (Open Hour)

:''7:00 pm – 9:00 pm'' (Wiki Salon)

: (Prime Produce ↗, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗)

: Also online via Zoom ↗

|}
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list ↗.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team ↗ via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

RfA questions

Hello, I was wondering, what are your intents and goals in asking the question "How would you react if Wikipedia shut down one day?" on both of the current RfAs? I don't see how that question helps determining or understanding whether someone is suited/can be trusted with the admin toolset. For most people the answer is incredibly simple... Just not go on Wikipedia that day. Even if it's not, I don't see how questions like that are helpful. Ideally, we want to stick to questions that are actually relevant to the discussion at hand. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

{{ping|Hey man im josh}} sorry about that. It's just that the Internet dates back further than Wikipedia so back in the 1990s it didn't yet exist. Just FYI. --NYC Guru (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

July 10: Free Culture Friday / Wiki Loves Fútbol Watch Party

{|style="border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|July 10: Free Culture Friday @ Prime Produce ↗
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" |
thumb|right|Wiki Loves Fútbol, World Cup Watch Party! ↗

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC ↗ community for our '''Free Culture Friday / Wiki Loves Fútbol World Cup Watch Party ↗''' at Prime Produce ↗ in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

This special event will feature starting at 1:30 pm a Wikimedia Foundation ↗ meet-and-greet bringing together local staff and community, and then at 3 pm a Wiki Loves Fútbol ↗ watch party and edit-a-thon for the {{Q|137545497}}.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct ↗ and Photography Policy ↗.

Meeting info:

Friday, July 10 '''Free Culture Friday / World Cup Watch Party @ Prime Produce ↗ (optional RSVP on-wiki ↗)'''.

:''1:30 pm – 3:00 pm'' (Wikimedia Foundation staff + community meet-and-greet)

:''3:00 pm – 7:00 pm'' (Wiki Loves Fútbol ↗ Watch Party + Edit-a-thon)

: (Prime Produce ↗, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan ↗)

|}
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list ↗.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team ↗ via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

About Kujtim Xhani ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi, and thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of :Kujtim Xhani ↗ by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into :Draft:Kujtim Xhani ↗. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move ↗", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history ↗, which is legally required for attribution ↗. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits ↗, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab ↗ at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu ↗ for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect ↗ from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves ↗ to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge ↗. Thank you.  —'''TechnoSquirrel69''' ('''talk''') 05:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)