User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why was "List of My Little Pony Earth ponies" deleted?

Why was "List of My Little Pony Earth ponies" deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Jax 0677, you cited the reason in your comment. It was deleted as the result of that discussion at AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Reply - Can you please be mote specific as to how the decision was actually reached? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • You can certainly review the AfD discussion. Most of the editors who commented there agreed that the article is an excessive level of detail for a fictional work, and not adequately supported by out of universe sourcing. The editors who argued to keep mostly did so on the basis of "size splitting", which is not, in itself, a valid keep rationale. (One editor did find some source material that was possibly promising, but no one looked at it more to find out if there was actually anything of note there.) A merge was discussed, but many editors were against that (including even several who argued to keep, since they felt it would make the target articles overly long), so there was not a consensus for that result. Therefore, since the consensus was that this is not an appropriate topic on which to have a full article, the result was to delete it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Popcorn555

Unless the deleted page is substantially different from Draft:Carnival Magic theme park, I would question whether the G11 deletion and spam-only blocking was appropriate here. The topic is notable with lots of coverage and reviews, and statements like "The project was plagued with problems right from the start" aren't what I'd consider unambiguously promotional. (Though of course it's unsourced so it should stay in draft until that is addressed). Yes the account is an SPA, but I'm not seeing clear evidence that they violated policy. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say that I find it rather rude that you would go ahead and delete the draft without any explanation after I explicitly disputed that G11 should apply, but it's not something I'm going to fight over, so meh. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
If this is indeed a notable topic, you can still create an article about it. The fact that the previous one was an advertisement doesn't change that if you would like to write an appropriate, neutrally worded article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

  • Three new partners
  • Google Scholar integration
  • How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, Seraphimblade

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Dance Loud

Hello, you just deleted this page. Is it possible you can restore it to drafts so I can work on it some more and fixing any promotional issues and such. In addition, the subject had more citations that I didn't yet use. FYI, I do not have any COI. I specifically picked this Band to make a page for because they had the most citations on the request for new page creations here --> Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music/Performers,_bands_and_songwriters. It is still listed there. I didn't use the last 4-6 citations on the page as thought there was already plenty.Breakfazt (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Breakfazt, I think you may be getting a little ahead of yourself. If you think it's appropriate to write something like Together, they form a dynamic and diverse entity. Fawn's classical training in live instrumentation blends seamlessly with Sanchez's expertise in electronic production and DJing. Praised by the Chicago Tribune and honed into a formidable live act through numerous performances since their inception in 2008, the duo fully realizes their combined capabilities in their 2020 independent debut album, "The Moment". in an encyclopedia article, I think you, first, need to thoroughly review what is meant by writing in a neutral tone, and secondly, you're probably not ready to create new articles yet. I think you would do well to edit some existing ones before you try to cross that bridge. That said, I do not restore advertising material, to draft or otherwise, but will give you the references which were used in the deleted article if you want them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree, that sounded promotional, without me realizing it. My intention was merely to reword the content I discovered about them, without aiming to give it a promotional tone. I used ChatGPt to rephrase some sentences, and it obviously has the tendency to pump up the subjects. This task was sourced from the Request Articles list, and I saw it as a valuable exercise. I was not previously familiar with this band. I don't need their citations since they're still mentioned on the Requested Articles page. But please, would you restore it to drafts so I can re-attempt a new version? I'll reach out for your feedback once I've finished making adjustments. Breakfazt (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I already said what I would and would not do. That answer will not change if you repeat the question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, please ensure you do not use ChatGPT to write anything here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Denver gathering

WikiProject Colorado

We will hold a casual Wikipedia gathering at the Gonzales Library at 1498 North Irving Street in Denver, on Sunday afternoon, February 11, 2024, from 2:30 to 4:00 PM MST. See details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Denver#February 11, 2024: Denver, Colorado Wiki Meetup.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Mountain West Online Meeting

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, 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 requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouriema Kimba

I would argue against that having a consensus of "delete". In terms of numbers, it was four deletes to three keeps. Each of the "deletes" were basically "fails GNG" whereas the keeps provided in-depth reasoning as why significant coverage should exist, including noting that he passed WP:NSPORT (which itself states that the coverage is likely to exist) and that we have 0.00% access to any of the sources that were basically certain to have covered him. Habst's last comment was not rebutted and I personally felt my IAR keep provided decently good reasoning as well, especially since it was also not rebutted and actually got another user to vote keep in agreement. Would you be willing to close this as "no consensus", "relist", or should I bring it to DRV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, while IAR is valid policy and one can argue for a "keep" (or, I suppose, a "delete") on those grounds, that would require an exceptionally strong consensus behind it, as it would mean going against the normal consensus of policy and practice (and of course, one arguing IAR is more or less acknowledging that other, more standard grounds for retention do not exist). I do not see such an exceptional consensus in this case, so I believe my close was correct and will not alter it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I will be taking this to DRV then; I am unaware of IAR requiring "exceptional consensus" to be considered a valid reason – rather, it should be given due weight proportional to how strong the argument is, which, in this case, is rather strong. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bouriema Kimba

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bouriema Kimba. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ==

BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you help review this before I publish

I have taken my time to compile a new article (Draft:Derby Ozioma Chukwudi)and would love to have your feedback before I push live to avoid any future deletion

Thanks Inegben (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Inegben, to request that a draft be reviewed, please use articles for creation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Inegben (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Athletes Unlimited

Hi there. You recently deleted a page I tried to publish on Athletes Unlimited. Although I am affiliated with the organization, I did write this page on my own accord and spent a lot of time trying to keep it as fact-based as possible, as I believe this is an important topic for wikipedia to have information on. As you'll see, everything I wrote about was sourced and unbiased. I am newer to wikipedia, and was not sure how to disclose my affiliation with Athletes Unlimited (and am still a bit confused there), so I do apologize for not following those guidelines. Is there anything I can do to enable this to be published as I've spent a lot of time drafting the article on wikipeda? If not, can I please have access to my draft back? Janef99 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Janef99, you may find how to disclose paid editing at the paid editing disclosure policy, as well as the message I left on your talk page. (If just an affiliation, but you're not being paid or expected to edit as part of your employment, that's a conflict of interest, and can be declared that way instead, but normally affiliation with an organization counts as a financial stake in the editing). I do not restore advertising material, but will if you like give you a list of the references which were used in it, and it in any case would need a total rewrite. Before you attempt writing anything else, I strongly suggest you read what we mean by neutral writing, as essentially nothing in that deleted draft complied with it (and it was about the opposite of "unbiased"; if you think that was, I am not certain that editing Wikipedia is a good fit for you). If you are used to normally writing promotional or marketing material, you will have to get used to a very different style of writing on Wikipedia. It actually does look to me like this company might indeed be notable, but if so, an article about it will need to just stick to neutrally summarizing facts verified by reliable and independent sources, not breathlessly go on about how neat and innovative they are. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I wasn't trying to break any rules and wasn't trying to be promotional by posting this. I will learn from this, and read what you've noted. I won't attempt to write another Athletes Unlimited article as it seems like you do not want that from me. I tried to model my draft after the WNBA page, and other similar pages, and I do see where maybe the beginning portion got a bit fluffy, but after that is simply just a breakdown of facts about stats, how the league works, and player performance. Janef99 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
That's actually why we generally recommend against writing about subjects you're close to or have a strong interest in. It makes it pretty difficult to remain neutral, and also to refrain from using personal knowledge and just stick to the sources. I've been doing this a long time, and I'd even have a hard time doing that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Unprotection of "Movez" Article

Subject: Request to Lower Protection Level for "Movez" Page

Dear Seraphimblade,

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out regarding the "Movez" page, which you had previously protected due to repeated recreation and unambiguous advertising or promotion.

At the time, it seemed to be more than appropriate. However, I believe that the protection level for the "Movez" page may no longer be necessary for the following reasons:

1. Notability: I have prepared a draft version of the "Movez" article "Draft:Movez", which demonstrates the subject's notability with primary sources. The draft showcases the significance of the software company, citing primary article sources/mentions in a neutral and objective manner.

2. Unaffiliated Contributor: I would like to emphasize that I have no affiliation with the organization behind "Movez." My intention in creating the article is purely pragmatic, as someone who has observed the growth and impact of their app.

3. Digital Identity Clarification: Considering the digital history of placebo companies arising with the company's IP, lowering the protection level would allow the article to be published for the web to correctly decipher the real company versus the copycats. This would contribute to a clearer online representation of "Movez" and help prevent confusion among users.

I respectfully request that the protection level for the "Movez" page be reconsidered to allow for the publication of the draft article. Lowering the protection level would enable constructive contributions from various editors and ensure that accurate information about "Movez" is available on Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my request. If you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Kinshipmaster Kinshipmaster (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Kinshipmaster, please first utilize the articles for creation review process. If AfC accepts the draft, then at that time I will be happy to help do the actual move. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Close of Isla Phillips AfD discussion

Hi Seraphimblade. Could you please provide a rationale for your no consensus close of the Isla Phillips AfD discussion. I think that there was consensus to revdel the diffs here, for the following reasons:

  • One keep !vote argued that one of the children was notable and so the diffs for that page should not be revdel-ed, whereas three editors (myself and two others) explained why the sourcing that was provided was trivial tabloid coverage.
  • One keep !vote argued that These are great-grandchildren of a sovereign, members of the most famous family in the world, in line to the throne and easily meet WP:GNG. This is clearly incorrect per WP:INVALIDBIO,[a] which I cited in the discussion, a well as WP:NRVE and WP:NOTINHERITED.
  • Another keep !vote argued that the diffs don't look that bad to me compared to examples from REVDEL categories 1-4; this argument was contested with policy-based reasons by myself and another editor, who argued that it's "bad" per WP:NPF and that Trivial and tabloid coverage are not acceptable for biographies, and the fact that these keep getting recreated suggests the potential for BLP harm from their existence in redirect history.

In sum, two of the keep !votes were based on misapprehensions of relevant guidelines (SIGCOV and GNG) and one was a gut check based on a misreading of an informational page. By contrast, the three delete !votes were all rooted in policy (WP:NPF) and a proper understanding of what constitutes SIGCOV. Thus, there was a rough consensus rooted in P&Gs and the keep !votes that ignored the P&Gs or misinterpreted them should have been discounted.

Thank you, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability."
Voorts, I don't think much of a "rationale" is necessary—there is clear disagreement on the matter, and no consensus emerged from it. Certainly I am aware of what your position was, but several other editors disagreed and argued for retention. As such, I believe the close to be correct and will not alter it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response. As you can see, I've brought this to DRV. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Isla Phillips

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isla Phillips. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Internal inquiry on User:AaravVideosYT

Hi, I'm CSM, just need to know about the information of a recent banned user whose sock account User:AaravVideosYT has been blocked by @Izno. The sock said that you blocked their master account. Atleast, if I know it's master account and it's fault, it would be appreciated. Now that's upto your discretion. CSMention269 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

CSMention269, I honestly do not know. I deleted that editor's user page not too long ago, since it was promoting their YouTube channel. I delete a lot of spam and block a lot of spammers, so if I blocked a previous account of theirs, it was very likely for that reason—but unless it was very recent, I almost certainly would not remember what account it was or even that I had done it. Still, they helpfully self-admitted to it, so guess a bonus point for that? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hmm I understand that, it's difficult for you to remember as you block many users for abusing Wikipedia, hardly possible to know any one who was blocked at long time ago. Anyways thank you for the info you shared. CSMention269 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No longer able to respond at AE, and off-wiki linking

It is frustrating to no longer be able to respond at AE, especially in terms of false and misleading allegations. As has been documented over email. This AE is being linked to off wiki, and seemingly brigaded. The most recent user's post is part of a pattern, they recently went through 18 years of my post history at ANI trying to claim that I had been Battleground/Pointy sticks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Drsmoo_and_WP%3ABATTLEGROUND_behaviour), including starting with a non-live diff that had been posted repeatedly by this user, and off wiki by someone, despite only being live for 15 minutes. Along with the off-wiki brigading, in which a user is repeatedly linking to my posts advocating for a "boomerang", I am very concerned that something very uncomfortable is occurring. Drsmoo (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In order to ensure everyone is looking at the same information, I do not discuss open AE requests outside of AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
That said, Drsmoo, it looks like part of your post addresses the word limit. For parties, that's enforced a bit less strictly (hence why I told Nableezy flat out to stop, but not you). If someone is directly accusing you of something, you can hardly be blamed for a response to that, but for the rest—please be more judicious in what you choose to respond to; a response is not needed for every statement that gets made. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, understood Drsmoo (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieval of Deleted Draft Content_YogiGuruSaugaato

@Seraphimblade, I am reaching out to you on behalf of YogiGuru Saugaato, I am writing in connection with a recently deleted draft by the name: YogiGuru Saugaato.

We don't have a copy of the draft content. How can we retrieve it back? Debottama23 (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Debottama23, if you are acting "on behalf of" this individual, you are engaged in paid editing, but you have not made the required disclosures. You will need to do that before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I, Debottama23, am a paid editor affiliated with YogiGuru Saugaato and employed by Aastitva Being Foundation. This disclosure is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, and I am committed to transparency and adherence to the conflict of interest policy. I have no other paid contributions or contributors listed on my page. You can visit my Linkedin Profile for authentication: https://www.linkedin.com/in/debottama-ghosh-9a8772b4/ My Employer - YogiGuru Saugaato is the co-founder of the organization. You can view his profile on: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yogiguru/ Debottama23 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
You need to actually read the policy I linked you to, and make that disclosure on your userpage. You are not required to disclose your own identity, but you are required to state who is paying you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
It did say I could disclose in the talk page. Apologies if this is not the way. However, my main user page says it does not exist. Kindly guide me as this is my first time. I only require the deleted draft. Please help. Debottama23 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
You will need to use the paid editor template on your user page. It doesn't exist yet because you haven't created it. If you are being paid by this individual, you would place {{paid|YogiGuru Saugaato}} on it. I can't do that for you; you have to be the one who does that. As to the rest, do you plan to put the deleted material back on Wikipedia? If you do, I will certainly not provide it to you as it was promotional and completely unacceptable. If you just want to use it elsewhere and will agree not to put it on Wikipedia again, I will place the deleted material somewhere for you to use for that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I have added the {{paid|YogiGuru Saugaato}}
To my user page.
I will not be using the same content on Wikipedia. I require it for other purposes as it was dictated and I have no copy. I will create a fresh article only after checking all the guidelines before I draft anything else. Debottama23 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Seraphimblade, awaiting your response. Kindly share the content draft as it is urgent. I assure you none of it will be used on Wikipedia. Debottama23 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
You do realize, I hope, that I am not required to do that at all, and am doing so for you as a courtesy. If you continue to be pushy about it, I am likely to change my mind. I will get to it when I have the time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
My apologies if you felt that way. The intention was not to be pushy.
Appreciate you taking the time to help me out. Thank you in advance. Debottama23 (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Debottama23, you may find the final revision of the deleted article at [1]. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much @Seraphimblade Debottama23 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, they attempted to make the paid declaration but malformed it, I've fixed it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to return content to page

"Final" means "final". Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ramkripalyadavg Content in this page Help us return content to this page I will always be grateful to you Thank you so much Wikipedia team Sofig57 (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sofig57, the deleted material was promotional, and also was not in English, as is required on the English Wikipedia. As such, there would be no value in undeleting it, and I will not do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Help us add more content to this page in English Your favorite item forever Sofig57 (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. This subject is almost certainly not notable; the vast majority of YouTube channels are not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ramkripalyadavg is very famous in Jamui district, all the people of Jamui district recognize each and every child. Sofig57 (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
You can also search Ramkripalyadavg on Google. Sofig57 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ramkripalyadavg [2] [3] [4] Help Sofig57 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The answer was "no", not "keep pushing at it". That answer is final. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

in review page

Please review this user page in English and add content to the Wikipedia team. I will always be grateful to you for helping us. [5] User_talk:Seraphimblade Sofig57 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Closure of the NFL Draft RfC

Thanks for reading the discussion, but surely you can't mean that you are overriding the RM process by endorsing this RfC. The RfC was fine in analyzing editors opinions about upper or lowercasing, and of course can be used as a major point of evidence at an RM. But it could not overturn WP:RFCNOT which is linked as determinative for "Dispute resolution". Randy Kryn (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I neither endorsed it, nor the converse. The discussion by the community did that. I just noted that as the result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
If I understand what you're saying, we can now take things usually requiring a WP:RM directly to an RfC, and a "requested move" now has at least two pathways? Is this correct (just trying to tie-it down) although I don't think the original close actually stipulated that, so an endorsement of the original close did not endorse actually moving pages, it seems if I'm reading it right, or sanctioning such moves. If it did it that will play havoc with the notification process (I hope you understand that, people can open an RfC and the pages they are requesting to be moved do not have to be notified, pretty much silent page moves would be allowed). Next step, can the entire question now move to Arbcom - is that the appeal route? Thanks, I'm not savvy on the details of something like this. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Nothing in our processes has changed. I've added some text to WP:RFCNOT to clarify, though it needs a little finessing. The short version is that the normal "pathways" are unchanged. If discussions fail to establish a consensus, or are unusually contentious, seeking wider consensus at an RfC can be a good idea. That section was never intended to ban the possibility of an RfC resulting in page moves. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted your good faith language until the wording is clarified at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Text added to RFCNOT, as your description added explanatory language that doesn't seem to be agreed to at either the close or the endorsement. The original RM at NFL Draft was closed as no-consensus, with no move review. The process was already broken (a move review is required, or used to be, as the next step after an RM) and now some repair work seems to be needed. Is there an appeal process which can be followed, to Arbcom or somewhere, or are the drastic changes to the RM process now baked in? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, there have been no changes to the RM process. You've been told this repeatedly, your understanding of the RFC and page moving process is incorrect. My edit was to add explanatory text to describe what is and always has been the way our processes work. Regarding Arbcom, they primarily handle user conduct issues. They don't hear appeals to an RfC close, you already had an appeal at WP:AN. MoS/Article Titles as a topic area is already under the Contentious Topics umbrella to handle issues of user misconduct. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Certainly no one can stop you from asking ArbCom to take up the case, if you think that's warranted, but I really don't see what you would have in a case request there. "I don't like the outcome" is not an issue ArbCom would typically handle, nor would ArbCom overturn the results of a community discussion outside of some gross impropriety with it. As to the rest, Wikipedia does not have any absolute rules, so a decision that the community is otherwise willing to go along with is not invalid because it happened in a less usual way. The community was willing to endorse the outcome, so that is the outcome. There really isn't any avenue of appeal I can think of from there; the close review is the appeal process for an RfC closure. Discussion over the wording of WP:RFCNOT should take place at WT:RFC, which I see it already is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Seraphimblade. The Wordsmith, if it's always been this way, you're saying that at any time in the past someone could have appealed an RM decision directly to an RfC and not to a move review? That's not how I understood the process, so if that's true then I missed it. WP:RFCNOT seemed determinative, but you seem to be saying that not only was something else always determinative but that it had already been determined when you made your close. I thought your close made the change. So yes, maybe I'm wrong, won't be the first time. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
RfCs resulting in consensus for page moves have been successfully held at VPP before, and in fact per our policy on article titles such discussions affecting a whole class of articles would fall under naming conventions and guidelines, which does not require RM involvement at all. See e.g. here and here for VPP RfCs on rail article titles. JoelleJay (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
And the NFL draft RfC close had cited other precedents as well. —Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Alex Heckler

I was so sad to see the results of the deletion discussion. I have not been on Wikipedia that long, but I did put so much work into creating a new article. I read all the policy pages and tried to conform to what is considered a proper entry for Wikipedia and was surprised by the hostility of certain editors who jumped up and tagged this article before I even wrote two sentences...I continued to work on it and improve it and bring in more data and sources. There were many editors who felt the article did not deserve to be deleted, but for some reason, the ones who were demanding for it to be deleted from the beginning began to shame all those who felt otherwise. It makes me feel really bad and quite unwanted, although I was really enjoying being a Wikipedia editor. Sorry if this is not the place to pour out my heart, but I was wondering if you could at least send me a copy of the article. Since it's one of the first I have written, I thought of keeping it for sentimental value...I appreciate any help or advice you can give me.--Hazooyi (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hazooyi, not a thing wrong with that. It's frustrating not to have consensus go your way, especially when you were sure you had it right, and I certainly get that—I've been in those shoes more than once, and it still is for me too. It is something you'll have to get used to if you want to edit here, though; it will happen from time to time. I put the final revision of the deleted article up at [6]. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I did not see any consensus, but thanks.--Hazooyi (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Gokul Rajendran

How can we get the information written on it back.? it was waste of time writing on wikipedia. Please help me get those information it was a lot of research, I had to do. ClimaFilms (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Question for administrator  

Need help with getting back the Draft, it was one of many days of research. Don't want to loose all that work, for no reason. Please help me get the draft back. Thank you.

Answered on editor's talk. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Govind Dholakia

Hello Seraphimblade, I hope you are doing well. You salted Govind Dholakia article back in 2018, and now there's a draft at AfC for this subject. It's gained notability under WP:NPOL and also meets the GNG criteria with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Could you please lower the protection so I can proceed with accepting it through the AfC process? – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

DreamRimmer, I've removed the protection so you should be able to accept the draft now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Rose Karr

Hello,

You closed this Afd as keep. Would you be so kind as to explain how you came to that (for me very surprising) conclusion? 3 users (including me) stated that she met WP:NACTOR (they explained why; and the article, even badly sourced, was rather proof of that). Would you mind relisting the discussion one last time? Thank you in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank, after reviewing the AfD, one editor handwaved at "NACTOR", but the challenge was instead to notability. Another stated that she had received "substantial media coverage", but apparently did not see any need to specify what that might be. Several other editors made a good case that they had made a good-faith effort to search for reference material, and not come up with anything sufficient to establish actual notability. As such, I believe I correctly interpreted the discussion and will not reopen or alter the result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The page will probably be recreated in the future, considering the various pages (films, awards) she was linked to (as you have seen yourself when you removed the link to her deleted page from all those) and the fact that she really does appear to meet NACTOR. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

About Deletion of RUET Career Forum

Hello and greetings, Hope to have a great day. Recently, you deleted the page RUET Career Forum in cause of Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I believe there might have been a misunderstand, RUET Career Forum has been serving the students for it's career development since 2014. I am sorry for there might content some texts that might not follow the standards and I should have overlooked them but it's not completely an unambiguous advertising or promotion. There's a significance about the organization, the organization is contributing for the career development for young and fresh graduates from not just RUET, also from the Rajshahi City.

I believe it could be a great encyclopedic article if it's done completely. I request you to undelete it and let me work on that. Thanks — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 16:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

ShohagS, as you have been involved in writing promotional material, please first clarify if you are being paid or otherwise compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to edit as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the question, I clarify that I am not being paid neither being asked to write it on wiki. I have volunteered in that organization once and it's seemed solid to me. And as long as I am aware that there's a lots of media coverage about organization and most of them are news footage. This is why I thought I could use the resources to write an article on that. Another thing is to clarify that the article contains some lackings of information but it completely doesn't mean a promotional article in my opinion. Further, If I am wrong please feel free to let me know. Thank you again. — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 18:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Alright, well I will take your word for it that it's boosterism rather than anything paid. That said, the result is more or less the same. As some examples (but not an exhaustive list) of issues: RCF is committed to helping... (don't care what they're "committed" to doing, we'd care what reliable and independent sources confirm they've done), It is acknowledged as one of largest career clubs... ("acknowledged" by whom, according to whom? That's weasel wording), The club’s motto is as follows: “Excellence is our obligation” (generally, a motto, "mission", "vision", and stuff like that, is marketese junk that would not belong in an article), was founded in 2014 by the passionate students of... (skip the puff editorializing adjectives like "passionate"), and it just goes on and on like that talking up the organization. Wikipedia articles should stick to facts verified by reliable and independent sources, without any editorializing or "talking up". I do not restore advertisements, but if you'd like to take a go at rewriting it in a neutral way, I will provide the sources that were used in the deleted article. If you genuinely could not see how your editing was not neutral when it that blatantly was not, I also strongly advise that you use the draft and articles for creation process rather than direct creation in mainspace if and when you would choose to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me
Well, thank you sir. If you can transfer the resources in a draft and let me work on that, I assure you that "That said, the result is more or less the same." is going to change for this time. And thank you very much. I might learn a couple things or more. — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk)
I'm not sure what was unclear about "I do not restore advertisements, but if you'd like to take a go at rewriting it in a neutral way, I will provide the sources that were used in the deleted article." I will not restore the deleted material. You may request to have the sources, or not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I thought you would transfer the resources into a draft. Well, provide the resources please. — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 06:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I have placed these at User:ShohagS/RUET references. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much. And apology for the delay. I was on vacation. I will start working soon. — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 03:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
Thanks for all you do. You really deserve this! Maliner (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

  • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
  • 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Seraphimblade,

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Spam

Hey Seraphimblade, out of curiosity, how similar is Draft:Pleng Chan to the page you deleted here? Thanks, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 21:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

MicrobiologyMarcus, it's not as bad, at least. Still pretty full of puff, and you were right to reject it, but I probably wouldn't G11 that one. I've warned that editor for removing their paid disclosure. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Good catch. FWIW, I've also thrown up the coi disclosure on the company talk page. Thanks for the quick response, I won't G11 then. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Consecutive revert

I have previously asked another admin but want to make sure that consecutive reverts on contentious article like this [7][8] does not constitute a 1RR violation. To me this is an easily exploitable loophole. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sameboat, well, I'd first say that "asking the other parent" if you don't like the answer the first time is not a good look. The answer you received was correct; consecutive reverts without any intervening edits only count as one revert. The reason is simple—in the edits you cite and in any other cases, the whole thing could have been done in one edit. So, doing it in multiple consecutive edits versus one is a distinction without a difference; it's still just all told one revert. Some editors just prefer to do larger edits in discrete chunks, either to make it easier for them to handle and catch any errors, or so that they can leave different edit summaries for different portions of it. But that's a purely stylistic decision; the end result is the same if they did one large edit or multiple smaller ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Another question: Do you really agree that the first two diffs ("free Palestine" and "war in Gaza" edits) provided by BilledMammal in the CPN constitute 1RR, even though my intention was never to revert the original versions? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't know anyone's intent. If an edit has the effect of restoring an earlier version, in whole or part, it is a revert. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for telling to not fix any obvious editorial mistakes because it can be easily interpreted as violation of policy and only being notified after the fact. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I am not here to defend Salmoonlight which I can easily see why their edits are a more clear cut case of 1RR. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert_Rodriguez_(writer_and_podcaster) editing

I have seen there are many suitable links in the article about Robert_Rodriguez_(writer_and_podcaster). I have added a credible link of Hal Leonard Corporation. YOu can remove the deletion tag Kurtgoodwin948 (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a sales site. Those are neither appropriate nor independent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Group-IB

Hello Seraphimblade, You put a creation protection on Group-IB back in 2020. It passes the notability criteria with the following sources: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I have done my research on the subject and I am planning to create an article in near future. I wanted to request you to remove the protection so i can proceed with composing the article. Thank You. Synchaas (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Synchaas, what you will need to do is to create a draft of your proposed article, at Draft:Group-IB, and request review via the articles for creation process. If AfC accepts the draft, I will at that time remove the protection so that they can move it into the encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance, Seraphimblade, I will write a draft for this subject very soon. Synchaas (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Monopoly Massacre

Hello Seraphimblade, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to get your opinion about Monopoly Massacre. Earwig's copyvio detector is showing a 90.6% violation, and the target website clearly states that the materials and information on this portal may not be copied, printed, or used in any other form for profit purposes. However, since it was added to Wikipedia, it's available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0. I was considering tagging it for G12, but I'm not sure, so I thought I should seek the advice of an admin. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

DreamRimmer, we have no way to know if it was legitimately copied to Wikipedia, so the person who copied it may not have the authority to release it under CC-BY-SA. Unless we either have VRT confirmation from the copyright holder that they are allowing that, or the site itself notes that they're releasing it under that license, we have to assume that the person who copied it to Wikipedia was not authorized to do that. That's exactly why G12 exists; we otherwise might be telling readers that something is under a free license when it's really not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. It appears that another user tagged it under G12. Your advice will be valuable for me in the future. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

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

WP:AN

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ADMINACCT demand from Rajeshthapaliya. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam on a "All RFCs" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Salaf task force on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Khalid Ali al mawlawi

Hello

I’m messaging in regards to the deletion of a page i was creating for Khalid Ali al mawlawi. I would like to know as to why it was deleted from what i understand its under the idea of “promotion and advertisement”?. But the page talks about and highlights a notable figure in the Qatari community and his actions during his career and contributions towards the country and how he helped deliver it and such.

I’d like to see if its possible to reverse the deletion of the page or an aid in providing edits to the page itself “i no longer have the source code of the page btw i need it back to make the edits and such.

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards Bipbo0212 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Bipbo0212, as you have been involved in writing promotional material, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you must make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Difference between revisions

Hi, please could you explain <nowiki> this revert and explain how i could fix it Wilfredor (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wilfredor, to start, it's far too long. The entire article before your addition is about 50 kB, and after it would be ~60 kB. The article is about the organization as a whole; devoting one sixth of it to a single controversy is far too much. That said, I think I see the root cause of that, and that's an issue in itself—you are essentially taking text directly from the sources, not paraphrasing and summarizing it. As an example, from this source: [26], your text was: The investigations did not surprise two federal officials who, fearing workplace retaliation, spoke with CBC News under the condition of anonymity,, while the source text was: The investigations came as little surprise to two federal civil servants who, fearing workplace reprisals, spoke to CBC News on the condition they not be named. You cannot do that, where you basically copy over the sentence and just change a few words to synonyms, and that also explains why the writing is not in a neutral and encyclopedic tone—you're not changing it to one. (You did that with several sources; that's just one example.) You also have a chart based upon a tweet, not any actual reliable source of data, and that's completely inappropriate. It does seem like it bears mention, but not a huge chunk of the article worth of mention. So, take the best available sources (CBC, for example), be very wary of using material from advocacy groups and normally attribute it rather than stating it as fact (so "According to _______, Doe has...", not just "Doe has..."), and so on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fani Willis on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 19

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 19. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LearnologyX (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Third Opinion on LiveJasmin Talk page dispute

Article content discussions take place on the article talk page, not my talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello and thank you for the help. I have just added two more sources, that I think are both independent and reliable, and make the exact same allegations about LiveJasmin as the parliamentary question does. Is that enough for publishing the "Controversy" section now? I would appreciate it if you took another look. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at the article talk page where it started. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to inform you that I have provided further references to our discussion on Talk:LiveJasmin#Controversy. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfotios (talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Markos Botsaris on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

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

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation

Hi @Seraphimblade

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi.

I was unblocked by The Wordsmith around 10 minutes ago. Before I return to my dear old routine as a Wikipedian (these last few days went down slow as hell), I would like to clear the air with you. I am here because I want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings between us.

I have replied to your concerns on my talk page, but in the case that you miss the notification, I will say it here too:

As I explained in my talk page, my block evasions on 29 March were a one-time hot-headed decision in a desperate attempt to salvage my "insane streak of creations" which dated back to 29 February (childish, I know). Of course I was aware of my previous problems with multi-accounts, and that is why I stated and I quote this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat"; and I meant it. Furthermore, I do not think that my block evasions of 29 March should be weighted against me since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be evasive (The Wordsmith). Furthermore, all I did in my “block evasions” was appealing (albeit in the wrong place). Just as Blablubbs said and I quote If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a "good faith" SOCK violation, as opposed to "proper" socking”.

I also don't think I should get another six month exile from Wikipedia because of this one-time hot-headed decision. The first exile was already super hard to get by. I have literally nothing else to do (apart of my job obviously) nor any other interest or hobby to persue, so during those six months I never felt so bored (and a couple of other things that I won't say to not look like I am trying to convince you through symphathy).

I took your last chance very seriously. I never ever again unlogged from this account (until 29 March for the reasons above). Just as I said and I quote, "the last time I used an IP address was in 2022". I don't think this is about giving me a third chance. This was simply one giant misunderstanding (because of the bots issue) that led me to one hot-headed decision, instead of the repeatedly and prelonged abuse of Sockpuppetry of my first block.

I know you are busy right now, so take your time; because I am not going to make any edits until we fully clear the air between us. For instance, I don’t understand why my daily checkup was so bad in your eyes. Perhaps I broke a rule, but I thought I could talk in my talk page even when blocked… I will be here to answerer to any other of your concerns, questions, or worries.

Sorry for this super long “death testament”, but the notion of getting another six month exile is making my heart pounding like never before.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, I've no intent of wheel warring, so if you're unblocked now, then that is what it is. I didn't see a lot of good judgment, though, really from the beginning. I don't think you were running a bot either, but I can certainly see why someone could have thought you were. If you're going to be editing at a high rate, even if doing so manually, it's very important to realize that someone might become concerned by that, and say "Hey, hang on a second, what's going on here?". At that point, it's very important that you pause what you're doing while you engage with those concerns. I know it's frustrating to plan out a schedule and have it messed up, but that's something we all sometimes have to deal with, both on Wikipedia and otherwise, and in the end there's no deadline. Your scheduling can't take priority over everything else, and especially not over working with other editors. So next time you plan a schedule, maybe either leave some breathing room in it to deal with anything unexpected coming up, or just be more prepared to adjust it. Just for clarity, though, there had certainly better be no more instances of the logged out editing, even if not doing so messes up your schedule or anything else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, my block and unblock were solely for the suspected botting issue which is no longer necessary. I have no objection to any separate issues being handled through the normal processes, and would not consider that to be wheel warring. But your advice is good, and Barr Theo would do well to listen to it. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi The Wordsmith. I don't think this is the appropriate place, but I would like to thank you for your work in this giant misunderstanding.
And yes, I will listen to his advice and take it very seriously, just as I did with his previous one.
Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright then, next time I won't put my personal need to fulfill my oddly regimented self-imposed posting rules over the actual rules. Lesson learned.
And next time I make an edit while logged out, regardless of the circumstances, you have my permission (not that you need it) to block me forever, I guess.
PS: I would also like to add (in case you are interested) that I already "adjusted" (as you said) my schedule into these new circumstances. My new "insane streak of creations" will now take place in May (1-31) and hopefully I will be able to finish it this time.
Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aa Bhi Ja O Piya

Hello Seraphimblade,

Thank you for your work. You closed that Afd as Delete. May I ask you why? The last relist by Liz mentioned no apparent consensus and posterior !votes were 2 Ks and 2 Ds (one asserting the film is a short when it's a feature....; the other considering R as a possible fair outcome); what's more indeed, 2 D !votes considered Redirect to List of Hindi films of that year (a common practice for released films, especially Indian ones, when the page presents multiple sources; and this one received not only coverage of the production but reviews; the film being mentioned in the target page) as a suitable option.

Can I ask you to have another look, please? Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, if you are willing reopen it, I will change my !vote to keep as I find the arguments by Eluchil404 and voorts that came in after mine compelling enough to flip. @Mushy Yank either way this goes, I do encourage you to start a discussion at WT:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force to get broader consensus Film Information is RS and meets "nationally known critic" criteria as it appears it could be quite useful. S0091 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I've seen these, but have had some things come up and don't have time to look at the moment. I suspect I will within a couple days; sorry for the delay. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Btw, the reason I stumbled upon it and decided to nominate was because the creator was part of a sock farm that was creating articles to insert sneaky hoax elements to them, see [27], so when I was going to check the content to clean up any hoax elements left, I thought it looks non-notable anyway so better to nominate it for deletion instead. I still think it's not notable, apart from coverage (which includes mostly PR stuff with apparent incorrect claims), it had a very narrow, local release so failing "widely distributed" part as well, but if someone still wants an article, I would suggest to create it from scratch yourself instead of restoring the one that might have some sneaky hoax elements left (the user was also making copyvio plot copy pastes). Tehonk (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Mushy Yank and S0091, if there's an editor involved who was known to do inaccuracies and copyvios, I think that's a very valid concern. What would the two of you, and Tehonk, think about moving the article to draft so it could be carefully checked for any issues like that, and then could be assessed for viability once anything like that has been addressed? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, all. Draftifying seems like a very good idea in this case, yes, and would allow to addresss any potential issue (and improve the page, obviously). Or feel free to make it a page in my User space if no one agrees on a Draft except you and me. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Tehonk for providing additional context. I am fine with draftifying or userfying. S0091 (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am fine with draftifying as well. Cheers. Tehonk (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I've moved it to Draft:Aa Bhi Ja O Piya. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Expungement on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Alexfotios (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Djong (ship) on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aa Bhi Ja O Piya

Thank you for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aa Bhi Ja O Piya. However, I believe that the WP:ATD of redirection to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December should have been implemented rather than straight deletion. Two of the delete comments mentioned redirection as a reasonable alternative to deletion and the general concern non-notability due to insufficient coverage doesn't necessarily mitigate against redirection or retention of history. Cf. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Amy Eden for a similar case. Thanks for your consideration. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Eluchil404, if you think it ought to redirect somewhere, you can do that. The title is not protected. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Opus Literary Alliance page

Hi, Seraphimblade, I was surprised and kind of shocked to come to Wikipedia and not be able to find Opus Literary Alliance (OLA) listed anywhere when I had just posted it a week or so ago. We received no notice that it would be deleted. You didn't contact me at all, so I didn't get a chance to discuss it with you. It just appears that you took down the page and moved on.

Like the Lambda Literary organization or the Golden Crown Literary Society or the American Library Association's Stonewall lit folks or countless other LGBTQ-related organizations, OLA has been created as a nonprofit to serve the needs of members, in particular, the writers of lesbian works. Everything about it is notable. Everything about it should be welcomed and approved here. A page entry here is appropriate because there aren't very many queer organizations of this scope represented on Wikipedia, and this one already has many members involved who DO have wiki-pages. I just hadn't gotten a chance to update them yet.

It sounds like you deleted it because I updated one of the member-director's pages. I intended to update quite a number of pages and link them to OLA. (Of course my team and I continue to build pages for lesbian writers which we then have to fight about with editors who don't seem to grok why queer organizations matter, are notable, and deserve a place at the wiki table.)

So your decision to delete OLA makes no sense. Could you explain to my team and me why you took down the page? We are all seriously aggrieved, and we are hoping that you will reverse your decision and restore all our hard work.

Thanks for your attention to this matter, DMT Dmthompson (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dmthompson, what is "my team"? If you're affiliated with this organization, you will need to make the required paid editing disclosures before we proceed further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_23&oldid=1220719994"