Misplaced Pages

User talk:The Wordsmith: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:09, 7 February 2024 editThe Wordsmith (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators15,541 edits →NFL Draft: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:02, 10 January 2025 edit undoSDZeroBot (talk | contribs)Bots705,526 edits Nomination of Imakuni? for deletion at AfD 
(309 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<span style="position:fixed;top:50px;left:-0px;z-index:100">]</span>
{{User:The Wordsmith/Articles}}
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 10 |counter = 11
|headerlevel = 2 |headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added ] --> }}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added ] -->
<!--<CENTER>{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=]|text2=FOREVER|image=Bathrobecabalicon.png}}</CENTER>
{{User:The Wordsmith/Articles}}
<CENTER>{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=]|text2=FOREVER|image=Bathrobecabalicon.png}}</CENTER>
] ]
-->
{|align="right"
{|align="left"
|- |-
|{{archives}} |{{archives}}
Line 16: Line 18:
|} |}


{{User:The Wordsmith/Backlog}}


{{hat|reason=Contentious Topics awareness templates}} {{cot|reason=Contentious Topics awareness templates}}
{{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|aa2|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|e-e|gc|gg|gmo|ipa|irp|ps|r-i}} {{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|aa2|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|e-e|gc|gg|gmo|ipa|irp|ps|r-i}}
{{hab}} {{cob}}
{{Clear}}


<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== -->


== A TARDIS for you ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== -->
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | A rouge TARDIS (or the closest thing I could find on Commons), for having made a closure so ] that its effects travelled through time and were being challenged you even issued it.<br/>. . .<br/>But to be serious, I appreciate that you undertook to close, and closed so thoughtfully, such a large and complex discussion even as it was getting international attention and pushback. Someone had to do it; the discussion was open for so long as to suggest no-one ''wanted'' to do it; I appreciate you doing it. ] (]) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
|}


:{{yo|-sche|CommunityNotesContributor|Chetsford|starship.paint}} Thank you for the kind words, I'm just glad the discussion is finished and we can move on (at least until the next challenge). I'm sure co-closers {{u|Tamzin}} and {{u|Theleekycauldron}} feel the same way. If you've got any recommendations for something more fun to read than that RFC (admittedly not a high bar) I could use a palate cleanser. Otherwise I think I'll pick up ] again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


::''The Hobbit'' sounds like a great palate cleanser! I was reading his ''Sea-Bell'' the other day and learning about the neat words Tolkien coined or resurrected in that and other writings (which might interest you, as a wordsmith, if you don't know them already), like '']'' and '']''. :o ] (]) 21:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


::You are welcome, the Wordsmith.... '']''. ''']] (])''' 01:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:::Thanks, I just bought it for my Kindle. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::{{yo|Starship.paint}} Thanks for the recommendation, it made excellent beach/pool-side reading. I haven't finished it yet, but I hope to sometime this weekend. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::You’re welcome! Interesting to have ‘horror’ story reading at the beach! ''']] (])''' 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::''Amaze'' <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! ==
This was not eligible for soft deletion. Please revert the close of the AFD and relist it. Thanks! - ] ] 14:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
:Per ], {{tq|If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, '''or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past''', the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to '''soft deleting the article'''}}. My reading of that indicates that even though soft deletion isn't the default for these, it is still eligible for soft deletion at the closing administrator's discretion. If I'm misunderstanding the guideline please point out where I'm wrong and I'll undo my closure. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
::{{u|Liz}} had noted it was not eligible for soft deletion. Liz, do you have some thoughts here? - ] ] 18:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
:The Wordsmith, can you restore and relist it for another week? Since it was recently closed, it is better than going through another AfD as probably that is what the nom may be looking to do by ].<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
|-
::I'm not entirely sure why the nominator (who wanted the article deleted) requested undeletion, but per request by you and {{u|UtherSRG}} I've reverted my close, relisted and restored the article for now. I still believe that ] considers my original closure valid, but I'll check the talk page there and potentially open a thread/RfC to clarify the wording there. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for all the work you've done at SPI the past couple days! <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks! What I have seen based on past requests, when there is a soft delete, the nominator wants to get it "hard" deleted, by undeleting and renominating, and we don't have a cooling period before one nomination and the next, for a soft delete.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 07:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
|}
::::Coming late to this discussion, I just note on an AFD discussion page when articles under discussion have been PROD'd or been to AFD before. I do not know if the closing administrator's discretion can overcome the general prohibition against Soft Deletions under those conditions so I don't have a definitive answer here. But when I am challenged like this, I typically do relist a discussion to garner more opinions to make a closure more decisive. Having closed discussion regularly now at AFD for three years, I've discovered that things are less black and white as they appear to be in policy pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Just for the record, after I requested Wordsmith for relisting, he obliged within 24 hours, and now the AfD is in a position for a possible "hard" delete having received additional delete votes.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


== Question ==
Notating here that I've started a discussion to clarify this issue at ]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


Hey, I have a special interest in improving articles with the 'written with advertisement like language' tag, or similar tags, especially corporate articles written in business talk instead of encyclopedic language. Do you know how I can find a list of such articles, or if there is a wikiproject focused on that? ''']'''] 23:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
== Improving "Resisting AI" ==


:{{tps}} As far as I'm aware, there isn't a WikiProject dedicated to that specifically, but ] sounds like what you're looking for. There's 22,000 articles in the category so you shouldn't have a lack of things to do. ] ] 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi
::Thanks! Maybe I'll make a wikiproject eventually ;) ''']'''] 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Could you please help me in relation to the piece "Resisting AI" - you kindly note it should be polished, and I am keen to do it but in which way? Now that the secondary sources seems to have passed the threshold, what kind of improvement should be made? Thanks a lot for your help. Andrea Saltelli ] (]) 08:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify, there is ] that might be of interest though it doesn't focus specifically on promotional articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:That sounds like a great idea, and Clovermoss is right about that category. Fixing promotional articles is a great way to dive in and make a difference. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


== policy question ==
:The main issue I see is the style/formatting, and sections missing that I'd expect to see in an article on a non-fiction book like information about its development/writing/publication, critical reception, other works that reference it etc. The best way forward is usually to check out Good or Featured Articles on similar topics, and see what coverage they give and how they are formatted. As an example of a random non-fiction book rated GA, there's ]. ] also has a style guide that may help you; it can be found at ]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


Hey wordsmith. Hope all is well. I have a question relating to a case I'm involved in. Can a topic ban ever be justified because of a perceived lack of experience and/or policy knowledge? Per ARBPIA, an editor must be EC to edit in certain topics, however, is it up to an admin to determine, even after an editor reached EC, whether that editor has enough experience to be able to edit in that topic? <span style="background:#636363;border:solid#636363 1x;border-radius:15px;">''']''']</span> 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
==]==
Hello, The Wordsmith,


I just deleted this page as an orphaned talk page. Typically when I delete pages, a notice is sent to the page creator, which is you, but Twinkle didn't do that this time. Your edit summary said it was part of a Merge but there was no accompanying article page. Of course, feel free to recreate it if there is an article on its way. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) :I've just gotten back from a vacation, but it seems like this issue was hashed out elsewhere. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)


== Sockpuppetry ==
:Thanks, Liz. That page was created accidentally by XFDCloser as part of an odd AFD, I must have forgotten to clean up after myself. The page isn't needed for anything so it can stay deleted. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


Hi, about this SPI case you handled: ]. You had temp blocked 2407:D000:F:0:0:0:0:0/48, 92.40.0.0/16 (?) but these still appear to be quite active with the sock network and disrupting quite a lot of pages. Can the block be extended here again?
== ] ==


Thanks ] (]) 13:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent removal of Discission tag, I want to ask about the remained "Undisclosed paid" tag, the user who placed the tag mentioned that "I work for a media agency and it mentioned on my profile". But I want to clarify that's not media agency, that's my own News media company, we run only news websites under that News media private limited company. We don't to any kinda agency work.


:Can you share a few examples of the disruptive edits from this range after the block expired? I'll check to see if there would be any collateral damage, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
If you are agree with my clarification than kindly remove that tag also. @] ] (]) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::Well here is the (needs PP for socking), mere hours after a previous IP sock was reverted. Others that I recently reverted include , , , , , , , . are from the sock network.]
::From the range, these include: , , , . The 'census update' edits from the range are also likely the same sock. ] (]) 07:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not seeing much risk in blocking the IPv6 range for a longer time, so I'll softblock that one. For the IPv4, it looks like there would be a ton of collateral damage there so it would be a bad idea to block the whole thing. What I can do instead is break it into smaller ranges that exclude most of the legitimate edits, I can do ] and ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


== Question regarding SPI ==
:Do you or your media company have any sort of relation with Rizwan Sajan? Why did you choose to write about this person? Many of the sources used seem to have been sponsored, which can give the impression of paid editing. Please read ] and ], and determine if any parts of those policies might apply to you and your Misplaced Pages editing. If not, then we can possibly remove the tag. I apologize if my questions seem aggressive, that's not my intent. Undisclosed paid editing is an unfortunate problem here, so it does need to be rooted out. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::No, I or we don't have any relation with him, he's a millionaire-billionaire from UAE. It's almost impossible for people like us to reach or meet them :D I was searching something related to ] then I come through an article regarding Filmfare Awards middle east. There I come to know about this man then I searched it on wikipedia to know more about him as I usually do to know about someone famous, but I don't found his article here so one day I decided to make article about him.
::Choosing topics randomly created problems for me in the past also:/ some fellow contributors think as paid editing. I read ] and ], and determined that any of these doesn't applies to me or my work. Don't need to apologize for aggressive questioning, you are doing your work <3
::I'll surely disclose if I got paid for any article in future. If you feel right then remove the tag. <3 @] ] (]) 10:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::I wanna ask one more thing, what if someone asked my help (the subject of article or any person related to the subject) to make any changes without any payment, do I need to also disclose that ? ] (]) 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::@] Any comments on this? ] (]) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Any sort of external relationship could cause a ] even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ok, thanks a lot, I'll surely keep that in mind for future work.
:::::Anything about the current Tag on ] ? @] ] (]) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::@]... ] (]) 13:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Apologies, I got distracted by other things. I've removed the tag for now. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::It's ok <3. thanks for you kind words. :) ] (]) 05:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


Hi, I see that you've noted that sockpuppetry was a strong possibility in the recent report of AraxesTheThief, but without technical evidence (as CU was declined), you can't be confident to place a block. Can I rerequest CU on that basis, as declining it may potentially let long-term sockpuppetry pass, which you've noted as a strong possibility? ] (]) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
== Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 ==


:Unfortunately that's not possible. All the known socks are already stale, so the Checkuser tool won't be able to provide any evidence which is why they already declined it. If there's future sock-like activity from that account or others, a new SPI can be opened and the new behavioral evidence can be evaluated as well. Or if their edits are disruptive, that can be handled through the normal channels. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
] from the past month (December 2023).
::Oh okay. We'll have to wait and see then. Thank you for the explanation. It wasn't clear to me that CU wouldn't be useful either way. Wish you a great Friyay. ] (]) 13:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Sadly the Checkuser tool is more limited than a lot of people think it is. Unless there's another account to compare it to that's edited en.wiki in the last 90 days, the tool is unlikely to show anything except maybe sleepers. After 90 days, IP data for logged-in accounts is generally discarded by WMF policy. For those, behavioral evidence is all we have to go on and we need to be confident in our findings to avoid blocking an innocent editor. Sometimes that unfortunately will result in illegitimate users avoiding blocks, but in my experience they often slip up and give us enough evidence to block sooner or later. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== Wisdom-inc ==

Thanks for closing the Wisdom-inc SPI. He is still active today on one of the reported IP ranges - ] ] (]) 21:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

==Thomas Hope==
I am happy to see you changed ] into US. A foolish mistake by a nitwit.] (]) 05:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you can change ''born in 1704'' very childish.] (]) 05:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Also the category ''1799 deaths'' is a mistake.] (]) 06:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

:I have no idea what this is about. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it is about ].] (]) 08:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

:Oh, that was reverting a sockpuppet who was adding inaccuracies into articles (especially around estimated dates of birth/death). If you're willing to take responsibility for the edits, you're welcome to make the changes again. Though since Henry Hope's son (also named Henry Hope) was born in Massachusetts, it seems like him moving to the US is correct. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

==Massive disruption==
Hi, can you have a look at these IP ranges? I think they belong to ] as they originated from the same geographical location(Pakistan) and have an obsession with manipulating the result of a page move discussion on ] just like the last range that you blocked.

*]
*]
*]
*]
*] <span style="font-family:'forte'">] <b>(])</b></span> 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*Also if possible, can you please semi protect the ] too? <span style="font-family:'forte'">] <b>(])</b></span> 03:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I've applied semiprotection to the talkpage. Those IP edits are probably Anujror or a similar sock drawer, but they seem to be one-offs. Blocking them would probably not have any effect as he's probably already moved on, and it looks like there are a bunch of legitimate users on those ranges. Protection is usually the better option in cases like this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 00:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 14 August 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-08-14}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 11--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1240033127 -->

== CaseofGoliath SPI ==

Hi The Wordsmith, did you review the evidence I sent to the en-paid queue regarding Elianaisaac? Link ]. ] (]) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

:I don't have access to that queue, but whoever does is free to take action independently of SPI if they determine it is warranted. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::Ok. I wasn't sure if you had access of not. Because it was an open SPI with a CU request, I ''think'' they left it up to the CU to review (got a standard response a couple weeks ago before the check) but I will double check. I will be opening up a new one for new socks I found anyway but was waiting until the weekend in case I came across others and might include Elianaisaac again depending on the response I get. Thanks for all the work you do, The Wordsmith. ] (]) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

==Christine-dark==

CU is positive and so is behavioral evidence. Hope you can block as soon as possible. ] (]) 02:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

:Unfortunately SPI is extremely backlogged at the moment. Somebody will get to it as quickly as we can, but if there's vandalism or urgent disruption then the normal venues like ] are also available and usually have a faster response time. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 04:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – September 2024 ==

] from the past month (August 2024).


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Line 82: Line 137:


] '''Administrator changes''' ] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ] :] ]

:] ]
:] {{Hlist|class=inline ] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:] ]
|]
|]
|]
}}


</div> </div>
Line 94: Line 146:


] ]

] '''Oversighter changes'''
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes''' ] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{Hlist|class=inline :] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}} }}

:] ]
</div>
:] {{Hlist|class=inline
</div>
|]

|]
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
|]
* Following an ], there is a new ]: ], which {{tq|applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past}}.
* A ] is open to discuss whether ] should be adopted as a ].

] '''Arbitration'''
* Following a ], ] (the topic and interaction bans on ], respectively) were repealed.
* ] of the ] ("{{noping|Cinderella157}} German history topic ban") was ] for a period of six months.
* The arbitration case ] is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

] '''Miscellaneous'''
* Editors can now enter into ], an alternative for informal '']'' arrangements, to have a ] reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
* A ] is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1242830842 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 4 September 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-09-04}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 12--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1243735654 -->

== Re. future sockpuppet cases ==

Hello; given you closed the sockpuppet case I had opened , for future reference, what is the threshold of evidence needed to support a finding of IP addresses being used as sockpuppets? The timing and nature of the IPs' actions seemed quite suspicious to me, even though there weren't many instances to point to.

(Also sorry about all the edits). ] 21:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:The timing is questionable, but not enough by itself. As far as the thresholds for evidence, "more likely than not" is usually enough to at least open an SPI case for either an account or an IP. In addition, the sock or IP needs to actually be doing something forbidden in ], rather than something allowed in ] or ]. Administrators will do their own investigation or ask you for more evidence if needed, but for a positive conclusion the standard is {{tq|obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring}}. Essentially, if there's another reasonable explanation then we generally need to ] in the absence of technical evidence.
:One other thing that filers don't often ask themselves before opening a case is "What is actually being gained by sockpuppetry here?" In this case, it was two minor rephrasings of a small amount of text, switching from a paraphrase to a quote. It doesn't seem controversial at all, especially in comparison to many of the other contested edits on that page. The IP also has a history of edits, which doesn't have any real overlap with Superb Owl. If he had (for example) been warned for edit warring or approached ] before the IP started editing, that would be much stronger evidence. As it stands, the more likely explanation is that two people have a similar opinion on how that information should be presented. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 22:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::Got it; appreciate the explanation. My rationale at the time was: I had thought the pattern of both IPs (cosmetic edits on random articles, but substantive edits seemingly only on the Electoral fraud or similarly politically charged articles) could be an obfuscation attempt. And I thought they would have something to gain from these edits, as we have devoted a lot of time to disputing phrasing in the article where differences seem relatively minor. ] 13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

== SPI Asphonixm ==
Hi, could you please review on my recent ]? If you don't have the time to do so, could you at least check whether the report was correctly opened? I'm a bit worried because I messed up the previous one, which was malformed and not properly opened. Thank you. ] (]) 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:I don't have time to fully review the case right now, but it looks like it was opened properly. For the previous one, it was missing the {{tl|SPI case status}} template. That template automatically adds it to the categories that put it on the SPI dashboards.
:Personally I think filing SPI cases by hand is too fiddly and unreliable, but it's a complex process so it has to be. ] has a module that fills in the case request for you; I use that so I don't have to deal with all the manual bits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

== Arbitration case opened ==

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 26 September 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-09-26}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 13--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1247736176 -->

== RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review ==

Hi there! The trial of the <strong>RfA discussion-only period</strong> passed at ] has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at ''']'''. Cheers, and happy editing! ] (]) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1223231383 -->

== Draft refund for ] ==

Hello, you closed ].

I'm requesting a DRAFT of this article restored to ] for further development and the addition of new citations to establish notability of the trophy. Will move to article space only upon significant improvement to the article and ensuring it meets GNG.

Significant coverage of this trophy exists that was not discussed in any previous AFD:

*

Thanks, ] (]) 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:{{Done}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 ==

] from the past month (September 2024).

]

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}} }}


] '''Oversighter changes''' ] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{Hlist|class=inline :] {{hlist|class=inline
|] |]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}} }}
:] ] :] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
:] {{Hlist|class=inline
|] |]
|]
|]
}} }}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
</div>
*] are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to ] (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with ] from October 8 to 14, a ] from October 22 to 24, and ] from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at ].
</div>
* Following ], the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion ] to ]. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
* A ] is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an ] process.


] '''Arbitration''' ] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
* Following the ], the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: {{Noping|Aoidh}}, {{Noping|Cabayi}}, {{Noping|Firefly}}, {{Noping|HJ Mitchell}}, {{Noping|Maxim}}, {{Noping|Sdrqaz}}, {{Noping|ToBeFree}}, {{Noping|Z1720}}.
* An arbitration case regarding ] has been opened.
* Following a ], the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were ].
* Editors are invited to ''']''' to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until ''23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC)''.
* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.


] '''Miscellaneous''' ] '''Miscellaneous'''
* If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put ] and ] on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
* The ] is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the ]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. ]

---- ----
{{center|{{flatlist| {{center|{{flatlist|
Line 144: Line 280:
}}}} }}}}
<!-- <!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)</small>}} -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1248355798 -->
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1192518845 -->


==Peter Middlebrook==
== Your note on ] ==
Thank you for your sensible action on the AfD for ], and particularly for the note on the AfD page + page protection. I think that should probably handle the disruption. Apologies (also to {{u|Izno}}) if my SPI report was a little bit of a mess. The 1 week timeline at AfD puts some time pressure, but I should've at least requested CU. I'll try to do better next time! ] (]) 08:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


:No worries, SPI is a complicated process even for what should be a pretty straightforward case. You didn't do anything wrong with it! Your filing was fine (better than a lot that I see) and had all the evidence available. I think those accounts are either socks and or were canvassed by the article subject or someone very interested in them, but since the CU was negative the 1-2 edits from each don't give me enough behavioral evidence to prove it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm replying to you here because threaded discussions are not allowed in ]. I hope this is acceptable. I reviewed ] and while I agree that summarizing the evidence in a way that doesn't compromise privacy is possible, I wanted to note that this case is quite different:


== SPI investigation clarity ==
1. There were no indefinite topic bans or blocks in this case.
2. The editors were accused of canvassing others and disruptive editing, not for being canvassed, which seems to be a far lesser offense.


Hi! Wondering if my earlier report on ] before the last user's report was too detailed - it's the first one I'd submitted and felt like I might have overdone it! Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 07:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Given those differences, I think citing this as a precedent is not entirely accurate. Please let me know if I'm missing something. ] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


:Several editors were topic banned and site banned in that case, and both topic and site bans have been proposed during the current motions. Additionally, the LTA who allegedly coordinated the meatpuppetry was already banned. Regarding being canvassed, I'd encourage you to look at the Findings of Fact in that case closer. The individual users were noted {{tq|has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed}}. Regardless, this was the first big landmark off-wiki coordination case that I can remember. Even if not all if it is identical, there are enough similarities that it can be looked to as a source of precedent in how related issues are handled. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) :No, I think your report had the right amount of detail. It gave the evidence I needed without me having to spend ages digging up evidence on my own. If all SPIs were that well done, there probably wouldn't be such a backlog at SPI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::Was there a user in that case who was sanctioned only for having "participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed"?
::I can see the similarities, but it seems that the accused people there were all neck-deep into disruptive editing, edit warring, actively canvassing others, sharing their passwords. And none of them were indefinitely banned or blocked. I think for completeness and fairness to the accused editors in this case, it would be good to mention those difference in your statement. ] (]) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
:::To the best of my knowledge, nobody was sanctioned only for participating after being canvassed. It was listed as sanctionable behavior, however and I never said it was the exact same situation. I'm see no need to add to my statement at this time; other editors and Arbs can read the case and determine for themselves how much of it applies. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Ok, I'll raise that point. ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


:: Ah, good to know! It took me a lot of time so it makes sense why there's such a backlog. Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it! ]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
== Welsh Tidy Mouse ==


== ''The Signpost'': 19 October 2024 ==
That actually does seem like it might be a viable topic, when it comes to "famous Internet animals". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-10-19}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 14--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
:It might be, but not yet. The coverage I've seen so far all seems like ]. If it ends up going viral and being covered elsewhere on a more ongoing basis, there might be something there. Someone is bound to try creating it, so I'm tempted to create an R with possibilities if I can find a good target for it. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1252022219 -->


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
== A bathrobe for you! ==


Hello,
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''A bathrobe for you!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I saw the top of this page and how could I not do this? ]]] 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
|}


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
:Thank you! <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
== ] ==


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
Hello :) I am referring to your deletion of the article (Misplaced Pages:Articles to be deleted/Timișoara Award for European Values). I am still quite new to Misplaced Pages and have definitely learned a lot for my first self-published article, even if some of the criticisms were linguistically very disrespectful, inappropriate and politically motivated. I would now like to make a new attempt at uploading, now that the award has been presented and the international media landscape is sufficient to prove the relevance of the award. I would also like to adjust the way I write to avoid WP:PEACOCKs. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
:If you would like to rewrite the article so that it can meet Misplaced Pages's standards, it is highly recommended that new editors use the ] process. Additionally, the guide at ] has a lot of great information about the article writing process, as well as things to be cautious about when writing. Good luck with your article! <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
== Signature ==


]
Your signature contains the CSS style properties <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>font-family:Courier New;font-size:3</syntaxhighlight>. As I understand the spec, the value for the <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>font-size</syntaxhighlight> property shouldn't be dimensionless. In my browser, I believe this is causing an issue I see with the visual diff feature, with your user name displaying at what seems to be a 3-pixel size in diffs. Could you consider modifying this? As the obsolete HTML font size of 3 is equivalent to the base font size, I think it can be omitted as your signature hasn't set any different font sizes previously. Alternatively, you could use the <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>medium</syntaxhighlight> value. I appreciate any consideration you may give. ] (]) 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
:My signature is pretty old. If it is causing problems I'm happy to update it, but I don't use that feature so I haven't noticed it. What's the name of the "visual diff" feature/gadget/preference? And if you could screenshot what you're seeing, that would also be helpful. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->
::It seems the visual diff feature is now available to everyone (it used to be a beta feature). When viewing a diff, near the top of the page, there is a selector for "Visual" or "Wikitext". You can also link directly to a diff in a specific mode, so for example adding <kbd>&amp;diffmode=visual</kbd> to the end of a diff URL will use visual mode. shows your previous post in visual diff mode.
::I've been trying to track down the reason why the smaller font size is only appearing in the visual diff and not the displayed text below the diff (or on the talk page), but haven't succeeded yet. Firefox will display the diff with a normal font size; Chrome, Edge, and Opera (all based on the Chromium codebase) show your username with a 3-pixel font size in the diff. Using the web developer tools, both Firefox and Chrome show that the <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>font-size:3</syntaxhighlight> property has an invalid value, and thus the rendering engine is ignoring the value, but for some reason with Chrome the computed font size is different in the diff versus the text below. (I did test that by manually editing the page to remove the <kbd>font-size</kbd> property, the user name displayed correctly with a normal font size.)
::I understand if you are reluctant to alter your signature, given that this problem doesn't affect how your signature appears on the actual page, and doesn't show up on Firefox. ] (]) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I'll do some experimenting and see how I want to modify my signature. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
== Copyvio ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice--> ] (]) 22:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==
Hey.


] from the past month (October 2024).
Re {{diff2|1198070406|this revert}}, are you sure? Footnote a in ]#1 states that a URL to a full copy of a copyrighted work, including those in citations, is a copyright violation. The edit I undid, and revision I highlighted in that copyvio-revdel template was to a full copy of ], which per its first page is copyrighted. ] (]) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


]
:Resolved per ]. Sorry for the hassle. ] (]) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
::No problem, I can absolutely see how it looked like a copyvio at first glance. I thought the same thing until I took another look at the URL. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, from the URL I thought it was maybe something that had been found on a Libgen or Scihub mirror. Glad we were able to resolve it though. ] (]) 22:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
:{{ec}} According to ], that version was published by Vox and the link went to Vox's ]. An e-book publisher publishing an e-book on their own servers is expected behavior. The work might be copyrighted, but linking to an authorized published copy of a work is allowed the same as linking to a newspaper article published on the newspaper's website. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
== Deletion of Page ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Hi Dear Administrator,
:] ]


] '''Oversighter changes'''
Please teach me on how the guidelines were interpreted in deleting the Page Mariya Rusalenko. I am here to learn, and most of debates of page were not properly answered. I have always detailed everything.
:] ]


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
If the experienced users feel not to explain things, It is very difficult to contribute. Existence ] 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.


] '''Technical news'''
:The consensus on that discussion was clear that the subject didn't meet ] or ]. Some of the sources were sponsored, and others did not give ] of Rusalenko. If better sources exist that weren't presented, I might suggest going through the ] process. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}
::I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity.

::# Not recognizing cultural and various local language sources when we write about individuals from those areas.
] '''Arbitration'''
::# Editors who have language barriers make decisions on subject language and related articles.
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
::# Short answers without explaining new users and cold form of answers when given some.
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
::I have worked in Maldives and later in Belarus/Russia, ( As journalist major), and I have come across these issues in both countries. Many sources that are major accredited sources are disregarded without research by experienced editors and lot of work and research goes to waste.
* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
::I am here for for over 4 years and keep on trying to develop myself with rules and guidelines. Its like having a fog in the work when aforementioned issues arise.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
::As an administrator, I hope you will assist users like us and provide a road to navigate and learn in a good respected environment. I will again work on the page, hope to have your assistance in that too. Existence ] 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1254686817 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 6 November 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-11-06}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 15--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1255531917 -->

== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].

Take the survey ''''''.

Kind Regards,

]

<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->

==You've got mail!==
{{You've got mail|subject=|ts=15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)}}
] (]) 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 18 November 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-11-18}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 16--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1258243105 -->

== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your tireless contribution at ]. ] (]) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you! <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 19:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==

] from the past month (November 2024).

]

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

] '''Technical news'''
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 12 December 2024 ==
== Relist vs. delete ==


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-12}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 17, manually published--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </div></div>
Just my opinion, but I think relisting ] probably would have been better than closing "delete" on the 1k-2d discussion considering that almost half of the discussion had occurred in the past few hours. Just noting. ] (]) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1262352523 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
:I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::I also think it may have been beneficial to keep ] open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into ] territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
:::I've given that one a second look as well, and I stand by my close. The numbers weren't a significant factor in my close,<small><sup>(though as long as we're counting, the ratio was closer to 3:1)</sup></small> and several non-keeps were weak as well. Ultimately what it came down to is that the Keep !votes demonstrated ], and there was no convincing counter-argument. The only real argument for deletion/redirection was ]/], which wasn't a strong policy-based argument. Considering a period spanning from April 2023 to (so far) January 2024 which encompasses coverage of multiple independent events and the subject's role in them as "one event" stretches the policy beyond what was ever intended. I saw a clear consensus to keep, and closed it as such. I won't be reverting this one, but as always ] is available if you would like to pursue it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
== ''The Signpost'': 31 January 2024 ==
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->


==HammerHead (company) deletion==
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-01-31}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 2--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
Hello Wordsmith, regarding the deletion at ], what was the argument that tipped you in favour of deletion? The last comment did say {{tqq|If SRAM Corporation#Hammerhead exists it remains a reasonable target,..}} and it does exist. The only delete vote was based on the nom which was about a gaming company and a different target.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 05:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1200068615 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – February 2024 == == Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==


] from the past month (January 2024). ] from the past month (December 2024).


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Line 245: Line 524:


] '''Administrator changes''' ] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{Hlist|class=inline :] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
}} }}
:] {{Hlist|class=inline :] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|] |]
|]
|] (])
|]
|]
|] |]
|] |]
|] |]
}} }}


] '''Bureaucrat changes''' ] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] ] :] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div> </div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> <div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

] ]


] '''CheckUser changes''' ] '''Oversight changes'''
:] ] :] {{hlist|class=inline
|]

|]
] '''Interface administrator changes'''
|]
:] {{Hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|] |]
}} }}
:] ]


</div> </div>
Line 280: Line 568:


] '''Guideline and policy news''' ] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* An ] about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

] '''Technical news''' ] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
* Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. ({{phab|T326065}})


] '''Arbitration''' ] '''Arbitration'''
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
* Following a ], the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
* Community feedback is ] for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at ].


] '''Miscellaneous''' ] '''Miscellaneous'''
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
* Voting in the ] will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The ] of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically to vote.
* A vote to '''ratify the charter for the ]''' is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via ]. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found ].
* Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the ]. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. ]
* The ] is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]


---- ----
Line 302: Line 586:
}}}} }}}}
<!-- <!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)</small>}} -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1201592826 --> <!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

== Your opinion ==

Hi there. I noticed that a number of your edits involve articles for deletion. I'm wondering if you could have a look at an article recently moved from draft, ]. I have found little coverage of this person online, but there are other accomplishments listed in the article. Can I get your opinion about the notability of this article? Thanks! ] (]) 21:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

:I do plenty of work in deletion, but academics are not a topic area I touch very often so my opinion might be of limited use. Based solely on the article content and sources, it ''might'' scrape by ] criterion 1. That really depends on whether 1500 citations is "highly cited" for the field of orthopedics/orthodontics, and how noteworthy those journals are. The Fastbraces thing also might count for Criterion 1b but the article doesn't currently demonstrate that, and we don't have an article on the technology itself. My instinct is that it doesn't meet the criteria. The only real source is the Ritz Herald one, but I've got some concerns about their reputation or lack thereof. No Misplaced Pages article on them, no discussions about them at ], and essentially nothing online that's been written about the newspaper itself. Their X account has 11,000 posts, but ~2400 followers and their posts are seen by an average of 20 people. They're a news/press release aggregator, and the article looks like a press release. Honestly the whole thing looks like a G11, but I might be inclined to send it to AFD instead in case I'm wrong about the subject not meeting ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 01:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you very much. I looked around for sources to improve the article, but found little. I might AFD. Cheers. ] (]) 11:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

==NFL Draft==
This seems an easy overturn:
*First, the three RfC precedents you cite in your close. '''did not change any article titles but clarified MOS language'''. was done at Kyiv, a page which '''had already gone through an RM''' and was simply asking if other pages using the name "Kyiv" should also be changed (a usual practice unusually brought to an RfC but, importantly, at the relevant page). And '''a request to clarify guideline language''' about two video game naming options in an RfC at the topic-relevant "Naming conventions (video games)". Unlike any of those, or probably unlike anything in the history of RfC's on Misplaced Pages, your NFL Draft close will likely be used as a reason to move hundreds of page titles, which will lead to further debate and contention as an admin has already said they would reverse any such action.
*Many editors commented that this RfC was in the wrong venue for a Requested Move, and so did not comment on its merits. Since the question itself did not contain anything about moving pages, but was simply an opinion poll, these editors did not leave their opinions other than correctly state that this was not a recognized RM.
*Not one of the hundreds of pages which some editors may try to title-change because of the close were notified about this RfC, not even the readers of the centrally important ] article. This seems way too inside-baseball and amounted to purposely hiding hundreds of asked-for name changes in a backroom of Misplaced Pages. This is fine for discussion purposes, but not for an RM.
*A panel of at least three experienced closers was asked for. This was ignored (although you said within the discussion that if others materialized they could join in but, if not, you were going to close alone). Shouldn't you have reached out and/or waited until two other experienced closers were recruited?
*Just one more point so as not to wall of text this. A most unusual thing in this unusual RM disguised as an RfC, you extensively interacted with one of its main proponents within the RfC while it was in progress. This was done, of course, in good faith, but shouldn't that be disqualifying in any RfC?
In light of all of that, and much more that can be articulated, I respectfully request that you overturn your close and instead ask participants to take the question to an RM at the ] page. Thanks. ] (]) 13:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
:{{yo|Randy Kryn}} I'm going to have to respectfully decline your request. If another admin has pledged to move war against consensus, that's on them and any conduct issues can be handled at that time. It doesn't change what the consensus actually was. Regarding your framing of the RfC as an opinion poll, I'm well aware that's how you see it. The phrases "opinion poll" and "opinion survey" collectively appeared 16 times on that page, and 14 of them were you (the last two were {{u|SMcCandlish}} quoting you in response). A panel was requested by two editors, and there were no other volunteers. This RfC was very long, but not actually that complicated. Nothing that can't be handled by a single experienced administrator. Who is it that I've "extensively interacted with"? Granted I interact with a lot of people, but I don't recall anything that would call ] into question. Of course my memory isn't the greatest, so if I missed something please do point it out. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ], to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ].
::Thanks for your response. You did not address how this RfC is so very dissimilar than the examples you used to justify the close. I thought that your interaction with {{u|SMcCandlish}} in the section asking for a panel of closers may or may not be disqualifying, which is why I asked. The coming edit war is not really an edit war, just a disagreement if this outlier RfC can take the place of an RM - you think it can and others reasonably take the opposite view. I'll ask that you please study the three examples you gave with the focus on checking if they had anything to do with replacing RM's (I'm not reading them as doing so). Taken that there is no precedent for replacing an RM with an RfC in such a way, I think I correctly read the wording of the nomination as asking for opinions. It was not made clear in the nomination wording that the RfC would replace an RM, and many editors did not offer an opinion on the merits because they too did not view the venue as an appropriate substitute for a real RM which would change titles at hundreds of articles. I'd again ask that you reconsider after studying the "precedents" you used as foundational to your close. A last question, do you think it would be appropriate to take your close to a move review (murky water, that)? ] (]) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) re-ping after name fix ] (]) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
:::I meant to touch on your point about the other precedents, but got distracted so I can address that now. There were several more examples given, but I singled out those three as a few of the most relevant here. They were all examples of RfCs that were not directly an RM, but sought to clarify how a set of pages should be named to comply with the MOS and other policies. With the consensuses (consensi? consenses?) reached, pages were moved as a natural consequence. The circumstances were obviously slightly different, but they were the same from the perspective of "Can a centralized RfC result in page moves for several articles?". I don't think there is an intent here to replace RM with RfC, but as I mentioned in my close ] suggests RfC and the Village Pump for seeking a wider consensus when discussions have been contentious. Regarding my interactions with SMC, I've taken another look at them. My two direct replies to him were confirming that I had seen points that he raised, encouraging all participants provide all the policy-based arguments they had, and encouraging civility/discouraging bludgeoning. Those seem to fall squarely within the {{tq|''purely in an administrative role''}} line of ], as well as {{tq|Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.}} As far as going to ], it does not seem like that venue is equipped to handle a discussion like this. According to that page, the sidebar, and ], the appropriate venue for seeking review of the closure is ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
* I'll be honest, I don't see how there possibly could have been considered a consensus there. ''So''. ''Many''. ''Issues''. That discussion was a disaster. Wrong place; not enough appropriate notifications (e.g. there were ''no'' notices at the top of ''any'' relevant page as is necessary per ]); many felt that this wasn't really a proper proposal and did not comment (e.g. many of the contributors from the very recent RM on this isssue, such as ]). ], one of the most active and interested places on this topic, was never notified. Dicklyon and SMCcandlish (Randy to an extent as well) literally BLUDGEONED THE HELL out the discussion, discouraging many from contributing. The amount of editors actually !voting was like a fifth of the discussion because of all the nonsense side-discussions. Everything–This was a complete wreck. It needs a do-over. That was no consensus. ] (]) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
*:The discussion certainly was messy, with tons of bludgeoning, aspersions and assumptions of bad faith. Several editors bludgeoned the crap out of it, both on the Good Forum/Lowercase side and the Bad Forum/Uppercase side (Side note, of all the people who took positions on both the RfC legitimacy and the capitalization, there were zero examples of Good Forum/Uppercase or Bad Forum/Lowercase. It didn't play any part in the closure, but an interesting statistical anomaly nonetheless). I made every effort to ensure that the quality of the argument, and not how many times it was repeated, was the basis for the closure. WikiProject College football wasn't specifically notified about the RfC, but they were notified about the Village Pump discussion at ] while that discussion was open, a few days prior to the RfC opening. Notifications were also sent to WikiProject National Football League, WikiProject Ice Hockey, WikiProject Baseball, ], ], and the talkpages of the last several years of NFL drafts as well as the main ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
*:: That's still not enough notifications - college football has many interested editors who would have had interest in the proposal; the vast majority of relevant draft pages had no notifications at all, ''let alone'' a notice at the top of the article page (where its more likely to be viewed, and is required by ]), none of which had that. The discussion was perhaps the most disastrous discussion I have ever seen; like half the people thought it wasn't even the proper forum! Many editors were discouraged I'm sure by the bludgeoning in response to everyone that did not agree with Dicklyon and SMcCandlish (to a lesser extent the other side as well) – such a disaster cannot ''possibly'' produce a consensus ''any way''. ] (]) 17:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
*I don't think this sanely could have closed any other way. Those who refuse to drop the stick should get on with their ] thread, which will close for ''endorse'', so we can put this to bed and get on with something more productive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
** I don't think that discussion sanely could have closed in favor of ''any way''. It was improper in just about every way one could think of. Don't think you're in the best position to accuse of not dropping the stick when you and Dicklyon have been trying for ''years'' through rejected proposals, non-consensus based moves against the rejections, and then more rejected proposals until now when you finally get your way through bludgeoning the hell to drive everyone away who doesn't agree with you. ] (]) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
**:Both of you, '''kindly chill out'''. This page isn't the place to attack each other and continue rehashing arguments. Continued assumptions of bad faith and accusations regarding sticks, horse-shaped bloody spots on the ground, bludgeoning and the like are not likely to be productive. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 20:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
**::Sure. The community coming to a decision BeanieFan11 doesn't like isn't a conspiracy. It's just doing what it does with the available ] (especially ] and ]) and independent instead of primary sourcing. If someone thinks ] is somehow wrong, or the entire lead of ] is, and that it should say something like "WP will capitalize anything found capitalizd in 50.000001% or more of the sources", that's a proposal they can make at ]. Good luck with that, since it would result in orders of magnitude more capitalizations, across at least hundreds of thousands of articles, and the community does not want that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
**:::Alright, c'mon now, that's definitely not chilling out. There's no need to relitigate this here, I'm confident Wordsmith can handle this themselves. ] (]) 21:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


The discussion will take place at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
BTW - 'The National Football League Draft' page has ''moved'' to lowercase. I don't know if that's what the RFC closure calls for? But it's been done. ] (]) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template -->
:{{ping|The Wordsmith}} - Seeking clarification. Is your decision, giving the 'green' light for ] to moved to '''National Football League draft'''? ] (]) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) - <small>Copied here from the RFC page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
::My determination was that there was consensus that the pages should be moved to the lowercase titles. That doesn't mean it has to happen all immediately in a mass pagemove; care should be taken to make sure we don't break templates, categories, transclusions, double redirects etc. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:02, 10 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 10 months and 6 days.
Immediate requests      Purge Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion 11
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 1
Requests for unblock 41
Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests 25
Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 51
Misplaced Pages template-protected edit requests 9
Misplaced Pages fully protected edit requests 4
Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests 51
Requested RD1 redactions 0
Open sockpuppet investigations 30
Click here to locate other admin backlogs
Contentious Topics awareness templates
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: He should not be given alerts for those areas.


A TARDIS for you

A rouge TARDIS (or the closest thing I could find on Commons), for having made a closure so Rouge that its effects travelled through time and were being challenged before you even issued it.
. . .
But to be serious, I appreciate that you undertook to close, and closed so thoughtfully, such a large and complex discussion even as it was getting international attention and pushback. Someone had to do it; the discussion was open for so long as to suggest no-one wanted to do it; I appreciate you doing it. -sche (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@-sche, CommunityNotesContributor, Chetsford, and Starship.paint: Thank you for the kind words, I'm just glad the discussion is finished and we can move on (at least until the next challenge). I'm sure co-closers Tamzin and Theleekycauldron feel the same way. If you've got any recommendations for something more fun to read than that RFC (admittedly not a high bar) I could use a palate cleanser. Otherwise I think I'll pick up The Hobbit again. The Wordsmith 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The Hobbit sounds like a great palate cleanser! I was reading his Sea-Bell the other day and learning about the neat words Tolkien coined or resurrected in that and other writings (which might interest you, as a wordsmith, if you don't know them already), like ruel-bone and wikt:eucatastrophe. :o -sche (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome, the Wordsmith.... Project Hail Mary. starship.paint (RUN) 01:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I just bought it for my Kindle. The Wordsmith 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Thanks for the recommendation, it made excellent beach/pool-side reading. I haven't finished it yet, but I hope to sometime this weekend. The Wordsmith 18:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
You’re welcome! Interesting to have ‘horror’ story reading at the beach! starship.paint (RUN) 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Amaze The Wordsmith 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all the work you've done at SPI the past couple days! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I have a special interest in improving articles with the 'written with advertisement like language' tag, or similar tags, especially corporate articles written in business talk instead of encyclopedic language. Do you know how I can find a list of such articles, or if there is a wikiproject focused on that? JoeJShmo 23:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as I'm aware, there isn't a WikiProject dedicated to that specifically, but Category:Articles with a promotional tone sounds like what you're looking for. There's 22,000 articles in the category so you shouldn't have a lack of things to do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Maybe I'll make a wikiproject eventually ;) JoeJShmo 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, there is WikiProject Cleanup that might be of interest though it doesn't focus specifically on promotional articles. The Wordsmith 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea, and Clovermoss is right about that category. Fixing promotional articles is a great way to dive in and make a difference. The Wordsmith 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

policy question

Hey wordsmith. Hope all is well. I have a question relating to a case I'm involved in. Can a topic ban ever be justified because of a perceived lack of experience and/or policy knowledge? Per ARBPIA, an editor must be EC to edit in certain topics, however, is it up to an admin to determine, even after an editor reached EC, whether that editor has enough experience to be able to edit in that topic? JoeJShmo 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just gotten back from a vacation, but it seems like this issue was hashed out elsewhere. The Wordsmith 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi, about this SPI case you handled: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/PakistanHistorian/Archive#24 June 2024. You had temp blocked 2407:D000:F:0:0:0:0:0/48, 92.40.0.0/16 (?) but these still appear to be quite active with the sock network and disrupting quite a lot of pages. Can the block be extended here again?

Thanks Gotitbro (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you share a few examples of the disruptive edits from this range after the block expired? I'll check to see if there would be any collateral damage, too. The Wordsmith 15:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Well here is the latest one (needs PP for socking), mere hours after a previous IP sock was reverted. Others that I recently reverted include , , , , , , , .
From the 92.40.194.0/23 range, these include: , , , . The 'census update' edits from the range are also likely the same sock. Gotitbro (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much risk in blocking the IPv6 range for a longer time, so I'll softblock that one. For the IPv4, it looks like there would be a ton of collateral damage there so it would be a bad idea to block the whole thing. What I can do instead is break it into smaller ranges that exclude most of the legitimate edits, I can do Special:Contributions/92.40.194.0/25 and Special:Contributions/92.40.195.0/24. The Wordsmith 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding SPI

Hi, I see that you've noted that sockpuppetry was a strong possibility in the recent report of AraxesTheThief, but without technical evidence (as CU was declined), you can't be confident to place a block. Can I rerequest CU on that basis, as declining it may potentially let long-term sockpuppetry pass, which you've noted as a strong possibility? Aintabli (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not possible. All the known socks are already stale, so the Checkuser tool won't be able to provide any evidence which is why they already declined it. If there's future sock-like activity from that account or others, a new SPI can be opened and the new behavioral evidence can be evaluated as well. Or if their edits are disruptive, that can be handled through the normal channels. The Wordsmith 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh okay. We'll have to wait and see then. Thank you for the explanation. It wasn't clear to me that CU wouldn't be useful either way. Wish you a great Friyay. Aintabli (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Sadly the Checkuser tool is more limited than a lot of people think it is. Unless there's another account to compare it to that's edited en.wiki in the last 90 days, the tool is unlikely to show anything except maybe sleepers. After 90 days, IP data for logged-in accounts is generally discarded by WMF policy. For those, behavioral evidence is all we have to go on and we need to be confident in our findings to avoid blocking an innocent editor. Sometimes that unfortunately will result in illegitimate users avoiding blocks, but in my experience they often slip up and give us enough evidence to block sooner or later. The Wordsmith 15:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wisdom-inc

Thanks for closing the Wisdom-inc SPI. He is still active today on one of the reported IP ranges - Special:Contributions/143.58.176.0/24 10mmsocket (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Hope

I am happy to see you changed Great Britain into US. A foolish mistake by a nitwit.Taksen (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you can change born in 1704 very childish.Taksen (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Also the category 1799 deaths is a mistake.Taksen (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. The Wordsmith 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it is about Thomas Hope (banker, born 1704).Taksen (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that was reverting a sockpuppet who was adding inaccuracies into articles (especially around estimated dates of birth/death). If you're willing to take responsibility for the edits, you're welcome to make the changes again. Though since Henry Hope's son (also named Henry Hope) was born in Massachusetts, it seems like him moving to the US is correct. The Wordsmith 18:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Massive disruption

Hi, can you have a look at these IP ranges? I think they belong to Anujror as they originated from the same geographical location(Pakistan) and have an obsession with manipulating the result of a page move discussion on Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty just like the last range that you blocked.

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

CaseofGoliath SPI

Hi The Wordsmith, did you review the evidence I sent to the en-paid queue regarding Elianaisaac? Link WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCaseOfGoliath/Archive. S0091 (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to that queue, but whoever does is free to take action independently of SPI if they determine it is warranted. The Wordsmith 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I wasn't sure if you had access of not. Because it was an open SPI with a CU request, I think they left it up to the CU to review (got a standard response a couple weeks ago before the check) but I will double check. I will be opening up a new one for new socks I found anyway but was waiting until the weekend in case I came across others and might include Elianaisaac again depending on the response I get. Thanks for all the work you do, The Wordsmith. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Christine-dark

CU is positive and so is behavioral evidence. Hope you can block as soon as possible. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately SPI is extremely backlogged at the moment. Somebody will get to it as quickly as we can, but if there's vandalism or urgent disruption then the normal venues like WP:AIV are also available and usually have a faster response time. The Wordsmith 04:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Re. future sockpuppet cases

Hello; given you closed the sockpuppet case I had opened , for future reference, what is the threshold of evidence needed to support a finding of IP addresses being used as sockpuppets? The timing and nature of the IPs' actions seemed quite suspicious to me, even though there weren't many instances to point to.

(Also sorry about all the edits). JSwift49 21:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The timing is questionable, but not enough by itself. As far as the thresholds for evidence, "more likely than not" is usually enough to at least open an SPI case for either an account or an IP. In addition, the sock or IP needs to actually be doing something forbidden in WP:BADSOCK, rather than something allowed in WP:GOODSOCK or WP:EWLO. Administrators will do their own investigation or ask you for more evidence if needed, but for a positive conclusion the standard is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring. Essentially, if there's another reasonable explanation then we generally need to WP:AGF in the absence of technical evidence.
One other thing that filers don't often ask themselves before opening a case is "What is actually being gained by sockpuppetry here?" In this case, it was two minor rephrasings of a small amount of text, switching from a paraphrase to a quote. It doesn't seem controversial at all, especially in comparison to many of the other contested edits on that page. The IP also has a history of edits, which doesn't have any real overlap with Superb Owl. If he had (for example) been warned for edit warring or approached WP:3RR before the IP started editing, that would be much stronger evidence. As it stands, the more likely explanation is that two people have a similar opinion on how that information should be presented. The Wordsmith 22:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Got it; appreciate the explanation. My rationale at the time was: I had thought the pattern of both IPs (cosmetic edits on random articles, but substantive edits seemingly only on the Electoral fraud or similarly politically charged articles) could be an obfuscation attempt. And I thought they would have something to gain from these edits, as we have devoted a lot of time to disputing phrasing in the article where differences seem relatively minor. JSwift49 13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

SPI Asphonixm

Hi, could you please review on my recent SPI report on Asphonixm? If you don't have the time to do so, could you at least check whether the report was correctly opened? I'm a bit worried because I messed up the previous one, which was malformed and not properly opened. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to fully review the case right now, but it looks like it was opened properly. For the previous one, it was missing the {{SPI case status}} template. That template automatically adds it to the categories that put it on the SPI dashboards.
Personally I think filing SPI cases by hand is too fiddly and unreliable, but it's a complex process so it has to be. WP:TWINKLE has a module that fills in the case request for you; I use that so I don't have to deal with all the manual bits. The Wordsmith 18:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft refund for Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina)

Hello, you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mayor's_Cup_(Missouri–South_Carolina).

I'm requesting a DRAFT of this article restored to Draft:Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina) for further development and the addition of new citations to establish notability of the trophy. Will move to article space only upon significant improvement to the article and ensuring it meets GNG.

Significant coverage of this trophy exists that was not discussed in any previous AFD:

Thanks, PK-WIKI (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Wordsmith 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter Middlebrook

Thank you for your sensible action on the AfD for Peter Middlebrook, and particularly for the note on the AfD page + page protection. I think that should probably handle the disruption. Apologies (also to Izno) if my SPI report was a little bit of a mess. The 1 week timeline at AfD puts some time pressure, but I should've at least requested CU. I'll try to do better next time! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, SPI is a complicated process even for what should be a pretty straightforward case. You didn't do anything wrong with it! Your filing was fine (better than a lot that I see) and had all the evidence available. I think those accounts are either socks and or were canvassed by the article subject or someone very interested in them, but since the CU was negative the 1-2 edits from each don't give me enough behavioral evidence to prove it. The Wordsmith 15:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

SPI investigation clarity

Hi! Wondering if my earlier report on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Geminiwebchickenwing/Archive before the last user's report was too detailed - it's the first one I'd submitted and felt like I might have overdone it! Thanks, originalmess 07:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I think your report had the right amount of detail. It gave the evidence I needed without me having to spend ages digging up evidence on my own. If all SPIs were that well done, there probably wouldn't be such a backlog at SPI. The Wordsmith 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, good to know! It took me a lot of time so it makes sense why there's such a backlog. Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it! originalmess 22:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Min968_unban_request. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, The Wordsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Spicy (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless contribution at WP:SPI. Maliner (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! The Wordsmith 19:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

HammerHead (company) deletion

Hello Wordsmith, regarding the deletion at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 18#HammerHead (company), what was the argument that tipped you in favour of deletion? The last comment did say If SRAM Corporation#Hammerhead exists it remains a reasonable target,.. and it does exist. The only delete vote was based on the nom which was about a gaming company and a different target. Jay 💬 05:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Imakuni? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Imakuni?, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Imakuni? (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)