Jump to content

User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Thanks

Project Editor Retention

This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
Thanks for all you do to acknowledge others at the Editor of the Week Awards

Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Henry j act (20:07, 3 August 2024)

say hello can i make money editing --Henry j act (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Henry j act. Paid editing is subject to a number of rules, including a requirement to disclose the person who is paying you, and ultimately I would strongly discourage you from going down that path. You can learn more on this page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you've been appointed to WP:COIVRT

Smallbones from WP:Signpost here to ask you a probing question or 3 about COIVERT, for publication (Sunday?) probably in a short blurb in the News and notes article. Some questions (answer here, on my talk or via email, as you like) I may just select one sentence, a couple of pithy phrases, or what ever I think is most interesting: 1. What the heck is COIVERT and why did it just come into existence? 2. What do you expect to do there? 3. How can Signpost readers help, or maybe at WP:COIN instead? 4. Anything else you want to say?

As always,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  1. COIVRT is a new acronym, but all it really means is that more people will be allowed to review reports of paid editing emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, which has been around since 2019. The impetus for doing this was the recent Nihonjoe arbitration case, where many people were concerned that the system for reporting conflicts of interest was not working as it should. The new changes give paid-en-wp access to all functionaries (not just checkusers) as well as a few administrators approved by ArbCom, which will hopefully lead to shorter backlogs and a more effective response to reports.
  2. There are many different kinds of tickets in the paid-en-wp queue, from concerns that someone has a conflict of interest to emails from non-Wikipedians who have encountered various paid editing companies. Our job is to read the report, look at the available evidence, and figure out what needs to be done, from no action to a block.
  3. If someone seems to be editing for pay and/or with a conflict of interest, typically you can address that on-wiki through some combination of discussing with/warning the user, using the conflict of interest noticeboard, and going to WP:ANI. Anything involving someone's private personal information must not be posted on-wiki, though, so if that kind of evidence is relevant, then that's when emailing paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org comes into play. Forwarding to paid-en-wp any solicitations you happen to receive from paid editors is also appreciated, and it's fine to send other relevant information or evidence about paid editing too; even if we're not the right people to help, we can probably point you in the right direction.
    Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

List of former municipal flags of the Netherlands

Hello, Extraordinary Writ,

If no one has gotten to it, can you delete this PROD'd article? I tagged it so I can't delete it. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Done! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Oops! Kadiyapatti, too! Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks like Explicit handled it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your Nomination...

will be awarded next week. Do I really have to include the "Cheesy" remark. Can I change it too "classy" maybe or "sweet" or even "pungent"? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

HEY! How about "extraordinary"? YEA! Thats the ticket! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Clever...but in hindsight it didn't need an adjective at all. Removed. (Just to be clear, I think very highly of the work you and others have done over the years with EOTW—hopefully my inartful choice of words didn't imply otherwise.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Humor is healthy. Thanks for the kind words. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 08:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 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

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Original research in hemp-related article

@Extraordinary Writ, recently I have encountered a particular user who disputes the legality of THC-O-acetate. Their claims appear to be largely based upon original research and analysis of court opinions, some of which don't even mention the particular substance. A summary of my position can be found here and an example of their edits here. I would appreciate feedback on my observation. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Replied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

  • The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Wikimania presentation
  • New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sigmals

Thanks for the block. Meters (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And for the rev del on my talk page. Meters (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
No problem—sorry it took so long! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Q10

Hey! I wanted to let you know that the IP that asked question 10 at Significa liberdade's RfA previously received a 6-month block from TonyBallioni (about as close as IPs get to indefinite) for project socking. The writing style seems to indicate that it's probably still the same user. There's definitely a case for not extending the block (they've claimed since that they don't have an active logged-in account, fwiw), but I thought it was worth bringing to your attention :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That's not a block I'd be comfortable making myself: the claim is basically that it's a functional clean start, and I don't see any obvious grounds for disbelieving that claim. But I'll certainly remove the question if someone else finds a reason to block for sockpuppetry. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems fair enough to me :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Extraordinary Writ. Thank you for talking the time to close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Close review: X blocked in Brazil. Regarding your statement That said, there's a lot of resistance here to the idea that ITN admins should just count the votes and move on ... considering strength-of-argument and discounting poorly reasoned !votes are still things closers can and should do, at ITN as anywhere else, can you clarify if that was a general statement about ITN or specific to the X nomination? If the latter, can you elaborate on the P&Gs that would apply to discounting the specific arguments there, and how it would have resulted in an actual posting? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba. I meant it as a general statement; I deliberately didn't phrase it as "consensus this closure was wrong", which I don't think would have quite reflected that discussion. As for how !votes should be weighted, obviously there were various ideas (some focused on WP:ITNATA, while others just talked generically about "weak" reasoning). But the common denominator seems to be the idea that some !votes can be discounted even if they're not directly contradicted by a particular policy—perhaps "those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue", to quote a popular essay. It seems many thought this applied at least to the "it was preventable/Musk's fault" opposes, which arguably aren't about significance in the first place. But ultimately most people at AN didn't go into a lot of detail about how they would have weighed the arguments, so there's only so much I say. Hopefully this helps. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the explanation. It's possible I'm being overly sensitive to the wording, being the closer of the nomimation that spawned the AN thread, but would you consider tweaking your close to more clearly delineate the specific ITN nom close from general ITN frustrations and ideas for overall improvement?
Personally, I feel that ITN closers are limited in their ability to discount !votes when the community provides little objective guidance in the rules written at WP:ITN. What's "common sense" to !voters who didn't get their way would often require a supervote for a closer to give that view more weight. Also, cries for discounting !votes invariably ignore that others on "their side" also made weak arguments, often leading to no net difference, which I believe was the the case here too. Thanks for your time. —Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I've thought about this some more and now think I might have gone a bridge too far in seeing any sort of consensus there. I've rewritten the end of the close...hopefully that addresses your concerns. (I do think the discussion shows a large chunk of the community wants to see ITN admins discount !votes more readily, but the wording I chose probably wasn't the right way of expressing that.) Thanks for approaching this thoughtfully. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, likewise, for the dialogue and your explanations. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from FanOfHistory8 on Pierre van Ryneveld (20:09, 23 September 2024)

Hello, are edits automatically saved? I can’t see a “Save” button to select .. thank you. --FanOfHistory8 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi FanOfHistory8. It looks like you figured it out: both of your edits to Pierre van Ryneveld went through. But yes, you do need to push a button to save an edit: typically this will either be a blue "Publish changes" button (on a PC) or a blue arrow followed by a blue "Publish" button (on mobile). Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi Extraordinary Wit, Many thanks - yes, I did figure it out meanwhile. FanOfHistory8 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from FanOfHistory8 on Pierre van Ryneveld (21:55, 23 September 2024)

No cursor appears, when I try to make the same edit in Notes section of the article: Sir Pierre Ryneveld - this didn’t happen a few minutes ago.. solution please? --FanOfHistory8 (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

FanOfHistory8, somewhat counterintuitively, the text of the note is actually found in the part of the main article it's attached to. In this case, that's the end of the second paragraph of the "Military career" section. So try editing that section, going to the end of the second paragraph, clicking on the footnote (which might say "a" or "lower-alpha 1"), and clicking the pencil that comes up. If that doesn't work, let me know what you see instead and I'll try to help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from 0ygp98of7968d574632 (14:19, 26 September 2024)

erm... what the sigma --0ygp98of7968d574632 (talk) 14:19, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Legendarycool (10:39, 28 September 2024)

Hello Extraordinary Writ, How do you prioritise curtain edits over others also what method would you use to explain your points in long discussions in talk pages Legendarycool (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Legendarycool. I'm not quite sure what you mean by prioritizing certain edits—maybe you could clarify? As for explaining things on talk pages, there's no one rule, but some of the most important things are writing clearly and concisely, being civil, looking for possible compromises, and considering policies and guidelines that might apply to the situation. It looks like you're already off to a good start in this area, and as you spend more time on talk pages, you'll get a better sense of what works and what doesn't. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 29 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) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from CoalcityAces (11:53, 3 October 2024)

Please what kind of pictures are allowed in wikipedia. Can I add pictures I find on websites --CoalcityAces (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello CoalcityAces—sorry for the delayed response. For copyright reasons, most of the images on websites can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. There are exceptions, though: an image will often be acceptable if the photographer agrees to license it freely, if the image is old enough, or if the person depicted is deceased. These rules get complicated very quickly, so if you tell me the image you're thinking about and the article you'd like to use it for, I can give you more specific advice. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Kei Sanbe's page needs an update or renevation

Apologies for my ignorance and etiquette, I'm new to Wikipedia.

There are many works of Kei Sanbe which are not listed on his Wikipedia page, but can be found on other wikis, news outlets, and read online currently

User:Maureen Wunsch has declared my edits to be vandalism, despite my contribution being accurate. Kei Sanbe released a work titled "Hotaru", which is incorrectly spelled on Kei Sanbe's page. I was correcting a misspelling, and issued a "warning" that my acts constituted vandalism and my editing privileges could be revoked.


I added a work to the list "Boku Dake Ga Inai Machi: Re" which is supported by "https://www.crunchyroll.com/news/latest/2016/6/4/boku-dake-ga-inai-machi-re-spin-off-manga-explores-new-mysteries" as well as the fact the manga can be read currently, and is attributed to Kei Sanbe under every single listing I came across. It was officially published, and therefore should be considered a work of Kei Sanbe.


I'm unsure what records are still avalible of my comments talking/ responding to Maureen Wunsch, but i'd be very greateful if you could look into our discourse

cheers! 2600:1011:A121:B903:A456:8199:9C8:914B (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP. "Maureen Wunsch" is a long-term vandal who's used numerous accounts over the years to harass other users (see WP:LTA/HR). I have restored your edits at Kei Sanbe; please disregard any warnings you might have received. Sorry for the trouble! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you sir! I don't know how to do proper citations for things quite yet but I do wish to contribute to Kei Sanbe's page as he's an artist who's inspired me quite dramatically, and I want him to get full attribution and credit for his works 2600:1011:A121:B903:A456:8199:9C8:914B (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheRealRayieYT (04:45, 7 October 2024)

One time I tried to edit a town page in South Australia to include the town’s primary school and they deleted my changes the town is Rendelsham and it was done under my old account RayieYT or RayieYT2 or something --TheRealRayieYT (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello TheRealRayieYT. It looks like there was a technical error that caused that edit to be accidentally undone. You're welcome to add it back if you like. I'd encourage you to cite a source when you add information: you can read about how to do that on this page, but feel free to ask if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
  • The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from GreenHillsOfAfrica (13:54, 7 October 2024)

Hello,

I'm currently editing Tunisia national football team, and I've noticed that previous contributors have added far too much info surrounding random figures in the team's history without justifying the inclusion of this information. Essentially, in the words of one of my professors, "telling me everything that's unimportant." Would this constitute WP:FLUFF, or WP:CRUFT? --GreenHillsOfAfrica (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello GreenHillsOfAfrica. I think it'd probably be fine to trim the main article down a bit, especially since the History of the Tunisia national football team sub-article already documents all the details exhaustively. That said, people sometimes feel strongly about including these sorts of minor facts (one man's cruft is another man's treasure), so be prepared to discuss on the talk page if someone disagrees. You might want to look at other articles on national football teams to see how they strike this balance, although some may be even worse :) Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Beezerwashingbeard (20:59, 4 October 2024)

Hello sacred mentor. Is your primary language English? --Beezerwashingbeard (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Beezerwashingbeard. Yes, I speak English and am happy to answer any English-language questions you might have. I notice you've edited the Danish Wikipedia; if you'd prefer to ask questions in Danish, you could try leaving a message at da:Hjælp:Nybegynderforum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
That's quite alright. English is fine for me. Beezerwashingbeard (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Saad Akbar (15:10, 14 October 2024)

Hello i want to know if there are any methods or tools to find references and citations related to an article? --Saad Akbar (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Saad Akbar. It really depends on the topic: sometimes a simple Google search will be enough; sometimes advanced searches with Google Books, Google Scholar, and/or the Internet Archive can help; sometimes there's no substitute for physical books at a library. We do require that sources be reliable, but beyond that there's a lot of flexibility in what you can use. Let me know if there's a specific article you're trying to find sources for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Extraordinary Writ. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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. Mlody1312 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It looks like other users have provided the guidance you're looking for, but if you have further questions, please ask them on-wiki rather than by email. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Access to Content of deleted edits

There are 4 deletions on the page of Banu Qurayza, all of which correspond to major edits. The reasons listed on the deletions is that they violate copywrite. The page itself is implicated in an ANI outcome (Incident archive 1159: Kaalakaa on Islam-related topics) where a consensus of uninvolved found that the user @Kaalakaa maintained a collection of NPOV abused pages on Islam related topics, including this page.

I would like to request a copy of the deleted content (3 most recent deletions), all of which were found violating RD1: Copywrite. I would like to salvage the knowledge and assess if portions of it remain relevant. If so, remedy it of its violation to be reintroduced, as long as its citations are of acceptable standard. Bro The Man (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your time and consideration. Bro The Man (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello Bro The Man. For legal reasons, copyrighted material cannot be restored. You can, however, look at the sources the material was copied from, which seem to have been (in order) [1], [2], and [3]. These do not seem to be reliable secondary sources, so I would not suggest using them in this article. But whatever sources you use, the content should be written in your own words, not copied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Ofcourse, I appreciate you making me aware of that fact. Taking your advice on board, I would still like to read the content that was removed to learn from the page to understand what was happening. Of course if it was blatant copy paste, obviously it's a violation. But I would like to know what was reference and what was written purely for the concepts that were stitched together.
I've reviewed the sources that you've shared and I agree that [1] and [3] are not up to par, where the first lacks referencing despite being an official publication with flowery language and the other being overtly negatively biased. I tracked down [2] and it seems to be written by a subject matter debater, yet also lacks references. Bro The Man (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you've resolved this with ComplexRational, but just to be clear: the additions were taken word-for-word from the sources I linked, so even if I could restore them to you (and I can't), you wouldn't find them any more useful than the sources themselves. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! That was helpful, I appreciate your help :) Bro The Man (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 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 Wikipedia, 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) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Jay Clayton (attorney)

Extraordinary Writ, it is nice to meet you. I noticed your participation in WP:Law and am asking for your assistance with a request I have posted on the Talk page for Jay Clayton (attorney). As I have a COI with Mr. Clayton, I can't modify the article myself. A different responding editor had some input about the references; he took issue with the exact wording of some of the content. I'd be willing to revise my suggested language based on your input and would implement directly if you approve. I appreciate your time and review. Looking forward to working with you to make these additions, Blackseneca (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Blackseneca—thanks for following the rules on conflicts of interest. I don't generally deal with these myself, but if you add {{Edit COI}} to the top of your request, it will go into the queue and someone will eventually give you a decision on it. Before you do that, you'll want to address the concerns Drmies brought up. The wording one is straightforward (just change "serves as an advisor" to "is an advisor"), but the sourcing one is a bit trickier. Generally you'll be on the strongest ground if you can cite reliable news reports like Reuters; Coindesk isn't considered reliable, and some of the others are in more of a gray area. It's your choice how much to ask for, but requests that are short, simple, and supported by strong references are most likely to be approved quickly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Iacowriter (20:19, 28 October 2024)

Hi. I guess some admin are mad at me because I don’t know how to round numbers. I need help on that. I was never taught that in school. --Iacowriter (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Iacowriter. Suppose a film grossed $579,985,450 and we want to shorten it to millions. The number is between $579 million and $580 million, but which one is it closest to? It's much closer to $580 million, so that's the number we use in the infobox and the article. That's all rounding is, although you can look at this explanation if you want more information. Please let me know if you have other questions about this.
I'm sorry to see you've gotten so many warnings from other editors. The two things I would suggest are: 1) always write something in the edit summary field and 2) if someone undoes one of your edits, never restore it yourself. When someone says you've done something wrong, it's really important to make sure you understand what they're saying; if you don't understand, ask someone (like me!) for help before making similar edits. It's fine to make a mistake, but people will get frustrated if you keep making the same mistake over and over again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, i’ve seen this before. The problem was that everybody was just giving me a hard time at school. I must’ve forgotten about this, and got very confused on stuff like this nowadays. Iacowriter (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Iacowriter (18:05, 29 October 2024)

Hi. When I’m adding Of the box office is for Winnie the Pooh, Batman, and Spider-Man, did these films count to include?

The Blood and Honey movies

Captain America: Civil War

Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

The Lego Movie

Lego Movie 2

Avengers: Infinity War

Avengers: Endgame

Justice League

Suicide Squad

Superpets

The Flash --Iacowriter (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Iacowriter, for issues like these, Wikipedia articles try to follow the sources. If you're referring to the List of highest-grossing media franchises article, the box office figures there are mainly cited to entries on The Numbers, so you should just use their data rather than deciding yourself which films to count. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok… sorry… Iacowriter (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Hectorinaaa (04:49, 1 November 2024)

how do I cite a certificate? --Hectorinaaa (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Hectorinaaa. There are no specific requirements, so you should be fine if you just include the URL, the title of the document, the website where you found it, and anything else that seems relevant. As long as it's clear where the information came from, that's all that matters. By the way, since death certificates are primary sources, it's important to use them carefully: citing them for a birth/death date (like you're doing) is just fine, but for less straightforward claims, secondary sources are preferred. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Hectorinaaa (03:36, 2 November 2024)

Is this article good? Isabelle Pinson --Hectorinaaa (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hectorinaaa. Very nice work: the article has everything it needs. If the sources say anything else about the style of her paintings or what made them distinctive, that might be worth adding...but the article is perfectly fine as it is. Keep up the good work! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Hectorinaaa (talk) 15:00, 2 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) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from BioGPT (21:26, 6 November 2024)

Hello, I’d like to write some biographies and I was of that there’s a template I can follow. Please can you help to find that template ? --BioGPT (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello BioGPT! This template may be what you're looking for: you can use it by copying {{subst:Biography}} onto a page and clicking "publish changes". (It gives some example sections to work with, but you'll probably want to remove some and add others.) Another option is to just find an article you like and copy its formatting, organization, etc. The Article Wizard will walk you through the process of creating a draft page where you can play around with things like this before you submit it for review. Let me know if you have any questions or run into any issues along the way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Gab Bois Studio (20:30, 7 November 2024)

Hi !! I'm trying to find where the modifications I added went, and how I can keep working on them? --Gab Bois Studio (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Gab Bois Studio: It looks like someone undid your changes, giving the reason "Unsourced, Narrative, external links in body of article". I know that can be frustrating. You can still access what you wrote at this link, but think about ways to address the concerns that were raised. Adding references is probably the most important thing you can do: if you click the button that says "Cite" while you're editing, it will help you add a citation in the right format. Also, keeping articles neutral is important, so words like "stunning", "clever", "instantly recognizable", "infamous", etc. can sometimes rub people the wrong way. I know that's a normal way to write about art, but on Wikipedia it's better to stick to "just the facts". Hopefully this helps...let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Iacowriter (19:37, 7 November 2024)

I said Spider-Man is now worth $26,664,582,784. What should I put for the actual number as I am trying to round it? Iacowriter (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Iacowriter, the number is in between $26.6 billion and $26.7 billion, so those are your two possibilities. Which one is it closest to? It's closer to $26.7 billion, so that's your answer. Another way of thinking about it: in this example we're rounding to three digits, so look at the fourth digit. If that number is a 5 or greater, you round up to $26.7 billion; if it's a 4 or lower, you round down to $26.6 billion. In this case it's a 6, so we round up to $26.7 billion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn’t taught that much in school. Iacowriter (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Du-haeng

Hi, thank you for your work as an admin and thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Du-haeng. I was wondering if you could change the closing decision from no consensus to keep. I think keep would be a fairer closure that's more representative of how the discussion went -- there were at least 6 participants and none of them except the nominator expressed any preference for a delete outcome while there were several arguments made to keep. The only delete view expressed was later retracted. I know it has little practical implication, but I think it could be useful down the line should someone try to re-nominate the article. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Habst, it's definitely an edge case, but with only two people willing to !vote keep, I think it's a stretch to call it an outright consensus, particularly since several concerns about sigcov (e.g., from Geschichte) were still on the table. With no new participants after the last relist, no consensus is the best we can do here, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. 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) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Iacowriter (15:08, 13 November 2024)

It says that the Smurfs is a $4 billion franchise. But I did research and it came out to $1208275432. --Iacowriter (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Iacowriter, the $4 billion figure is cited to this 2008 Reuters article, which says "the business they have created in over 30 languages is put at some $4 billion". I don't really know how they calculated that figure (maybe it also includes comics, merchandise, television, and the like?), but it's best to follow the sources when they give a specific number like that.
By the way, I want to repeat that it's very important to leave an edit summary each time you make an edit. It doesn't have to be long—it just has to explain what you did in that edit, for example "updated Batman revenue numbers". People find it frustrating when there isn't an edit summary because it's harder to tell what changes were made. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
OK, sorry. Iacowriter (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
OK. I added the summary. Are we good now? Iacowriter (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
If you update numbers you should update the accessdate as well. Timur9008 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

RM at Talk:First Battle of Panipat

Hi, given that I in particular refuted any argument for consistency, I am curious as to how you conclude: The consistency argument isn't so weak that I as a closer can disregard it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, consistency is never the strongest argument out there, but the only way I could close that discussion as moved would be if I gave it zero weight, and that's not something I can do: it does have some basis in policy, and while you and SMcCandlish reasonably argued it shouldn't govern, ultimately others didn't agree. I don't think it's fair to say the opposers weren't making a WP:CONSISTENT argument; PadFoot, for instance, pretty clearly is. In another RM I might come down differently, but when this is combined with Amakuru's entirely separate concerns, I don't see how I could find a consensus here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Amakuru's entirely separate concerns are based on a superficial review of the ngram evidence - ie without considering context and that ngrams do not distinguish expected uses of title case (eg headings, captions and citations) versus usage in prose (what we need to consider) or that ngrams can often be contexturalised to give a better picture of usage in prose. This is something well established by the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines (per WP:RM) and explicitly stated in response to Amakuru. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I didn't say that all opposers weren't making an argument invoking WP:CONSISTENT though in truth, I may have misunderstood a comment made by Noorullah. However, what I said about the distinction between WP:CONSISTENT and WP:OTHERCONTENT is no less valid. Invoking a shortcut does not mean that the linked P&G reasonably applies and/or that the P&G has been reasonably construed (or misconstrued). One cannot simply take a presumed meaning of a shortcut word (consistent) as representing the P&G linked by the shortcut. The meaning is established by the linked text within the fuller context of the prevailing policy and supporting guidance. Furthermore, Padfoot makes an unsubstantiated assertion of an "informal convention" on Wikipedia to use "First Battle of ..." (with 'B' capitalised) - which is readily disproven by a search of WP. B is not always capitalised (for reasons of P&G) in the construction [ordinal] battle of X. There is no documented convention to capitalise battle and there is no inconsistency between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT. CONSISTENT applies to word patterns in title phrases. Asserting (through just citing the shortcut) that CONSISTENCY also extends to the capitalisation in a word pattern is a pettifogging argument that has been thoroughly rebutted. WP:NHC tells us that inappropriate arguments should be discarded. Alternatively, where an argument has negligible substance, it can be assigned negligible weight. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENT (and WP:CRITERIA) is a broadly worded policy that says consistency is an important goal. It has no capitalization exception, at least not at WP:TITLEFORMAT (which covers "questions not covered by the five principles", of which consistency is one). I don't think you really disagree that if there were 999 properly capitalized titles and just one that fell a bit below the MOS:CAPS threshold, editors could properly consider consistency. This case isn't that drastic, but it's not nothing either, and with my closer hat on I don't have the power to say that the opposers are placing too much weight on consistency here. That said, this may be a moot point; if the RM at Talk:First battle of Öland (1564) isn't successful, the consistency argument would be considerably weaker in future RMs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, thank you. Per TITLEFORMAT, the use of sentence case is not covered [emphasis added] by CRITERIA - ie it falls outside CRITERIA. Note, CONSISTENT does not link to CRITERIA but to Wikipedia:Article titles#Consistency. Furthermore, while the statement at CRITERIA might be broad, it is explicitly narrowed at WP:TITLECON. Determining sentence case ultimately falls to MOS:CAPS. I would disagree with the 999:1 analogy as being an argument of WP:CONSISTENT. It assumes that the 999 are correctly capitalised and/or that all 1,000 are directly comparable rather than just somewhat similar (eg X in the Olympic G|games would be directly comparable but battles are not). This would be a argument of WP:FAITACCOMPLI and OTHERCONTENT but not a reasonable argument of CONSISTENT. The use of sentence case is a fundamental matter of WP style. Asserting that CONSISTENT might provide a loophole around this is clearly a contradiction to the spirit and intent and the written word of P&G. MOS:CAPS (through TITLEFORMAT) is RS based. Suggesting that CONSISTENCY reasonably overrides this creates multiple inconsistencies in P&G where none exist. It is inherently a pettifogging argument that should be discarded. Yes, it may be moot but, while it is appropriate to use an RM to address a [small] group of related articles, it is not appropriate for an RM to change policy by default. This is a matter that should be dealt with by an RfC. A result per the proposal will create contradictions between article titles and use in prose where MOS:CAPS undesputidly prevails. This RM has been used as a pretense to legitimise that RM. If nothing else, this dialogue helps coalesce my thoughts as a response there. If you don't already, you might watch WP:MR - but not about this move. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think we've at least identified the underlying issue here, which is whether MOS:CAPS necessarily trumps consistency or whether they're separate policy considerations that editors can at least sometimes balance against each other. I'm not persuaded that policy supports your answer (in letter or in spirit), but an RfC would certainly be one way to resolve the matter. And you're also welcome to take this closure to MR if you'd like, even just as a test case—you won't hurt my feelings :) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Format fix at RRfA

Thanks, beat me to it. The perils of editing by phone. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 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 Wikipedia 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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Zonexer7 on Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports (21:33, 22 November 2024)

Trey THE Grey. --Zonexer7 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zonexer7 (talk page watcher) You've got a question? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Mediterranean basin

Thanks for closing the RM there. But please be aware that there is an expectation of closers to do at least some of the associated "cleanup" work, such as fixing the article contents to be consistent with the new title. Fixing incoming links is a lot more work that should get done, but doesn't typically fall on the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the reminder. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank You. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Lasalsaloca (23:07, 23 November 2024)

I’d like to publish a short article about La Salsa Loca with the brand ethos, company values & info of who owns the business --Lasalsaloca (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lasalsaloca (talk page watcher) So, quick question, is writing this article a part of your job? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Buannel Studio Pvt Ltd (10:59, 25 November 2024)

hi, i like to create page for our Bussiness firm as you can see here in my username, but i dont have any experience i like to go throught from your help. --Buannel Studio Pvt Ltd (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Buannel Studio Pvt Ltd, unfortunately writing about your own business is considered a conflict of interest and is generally avoided. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all articles must be written from a neutral point of view and be supported by reliable and independent sources to prove that it is notable. Please note that using Wikipedia for advertising and/or promotion is not permitted, see WP:PROMO and WP:NOTWEBHOST for more information. Thank you. TLJ7863 (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Revision update

I know why you erased it but it is not unsourced. But fine i will write the source also now please undo your revision. KatsuhiroHarada(Tekken) (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this was intended for Johnj1995. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from MagmaAdmiral (19:00, 25 November 2024)

I cannot find things to edit. --MagmaAdmiral (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello MagmaAdmiral. What kinds of things are you interested in? There's a list here of pages that could particularly use some help, but another option is to just find an article that interests you, read it, and think about ways it could be improved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@MagmaAdmiral (talk page watcher) You also have access to a "homepage" with suggested edits and tutorials. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, and I will start editing! MagmaAdmiral (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblock template used by others

Hi. Is it possible to place an unblock request on someone else's talk page?197.244.161.127 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) technically yes you can, but it will be declined. Part of our process for block appeals is for the blocked editor themselves to show they understand why they were blocked and how they will avoid further disruption if they're unblocked. We typically don't accept other editors appealing on behalf of a blocked editor. If the editor cannot edit their own talk page then they can appeal to WP:UTRS, and if they also can't do that then they can email the arbitration committee. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)This appears to be related to 202.173.191.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), not a named user. It is a school IP that was indef'ed in 2009. After 15 years whichever student was behind it is long gone. Meters (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Marine 69-71:, still active but no longer an admin. Meters (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and unblocked: simple vandalism doesn't require an indef IP block, and even if it is a proxy, indeffing one IP from the range isn't how we deal with it in 2024. 197 IP, generally the best approach for this situation is to ask the blocking administrator or, if they're no longer an admin (as in this case), to leave a note at WP:AN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ally Kimote

Hello. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you have redirected the page for Ally Kimote to List of Hong Kong Twenty20 International cricketers. It should have been redirected to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers as proposed in the AFD discussion. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Shrug02—now fixed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Guidance on Creating a Wikipedia Article

Hello Extraordinary Writ, I am considering creating a Wikipedia article about Vaibhav Santosh Naik, and I wanted to seek your guidance to ensure I proceed appropriately. Vaibhav Santosh Naik is [briefly explain the notability of the person, e.g., his profession, achievements, or why he is notable].I want to make sure that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and that the article adheres to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing.

Could you please advise me on the following? Does the subject appear to meet the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia? What reliable sources would you recommend I use to establish notability and support the article's content? Are there specific best practices or resources for new article creation I should follow?

Thank you for your time and any advice you can provide. I greatly appreciate your assistance in helping me contribute positively to Wikipedia. YAKSH75 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello YAKSH75. When you last asked me about this, I said that I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing Mr. Naik in detail, as required by our notability guidelines. Unless there are sources I'm not aware of, this still seems to be the case, so I do not think he's eligible for an article at this time. Creating a new article is one of the most difficult things you can do on Wikipedia—I think you'll find it a lot more rewarding to keep contributing to the 7 million articles we already have.
By the way, some aspects of your question (for example, the [briefly explain...] part) suggest it was copied from somewhere else. I'd strongly encourage you to use only your own words here, and in particular to avoid artificial intelligence, which can pose a number of problems when used on Wikipedia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your valuable replay YAKSH75 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Bradforde26 on Google Lens (19:22, 29 November 2024)

Can you please help me with this --Bradforde26 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bradforde26. What specifically do you need help with? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Need help with relaunching my app, also assistance with documents for ownership and my paycheck please for Google Lens 2600:100C:B24C:10C5:FC48:7AFF:FE72:25 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm here to help people with questions related to editing Wikipedia. If you're having some sort of problem with Google Lens or another app, I'd suggest looking online for a help page, contacting the company, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 30 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) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert User:Electrabytes04

Hi, I noticed you reverted my user page to its version from before the deletion review, could you please revert your edit? I made my user page better after the original page was deleted and would like to keep that version. If this is not the best place/person to ask, please let me know. Electrabytes04 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Electrabytes04, done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Bagalamama (13:26, 7 December 2024)

Hello, please how do I generate table assessment to check if a subject meet WP:GNG --Bagalamama (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bagalamama, if you're referring to the tables people sometimes use in deletion discussions, there's a script you can install that creates them: click here, paste into it importScript('User:DannyS712/SATG.js'); // [[User:DannyS712/SATG.js]], and click "publish changes". This will create a button that says "SA Table Generator" somewhere on your screen (on the left side, on the right side, or in a menu at the top), and if you click it, it will walk you through the process of creating the table. Please let me know if you have other questions or if I've misunderstood what you're asking. This can be a very complicated area, so if you have a question about whether something meets the GNG, you're always welcome to just ask me about it directly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeking assist on WP:ANI

Hey there. Am wondering if you could help take a look at this case. Said IP address has persisted with disruptive behaviour and personal attacks, and I do feel this is increasingly unbecoming of an editor. Thank you! hundenvonPG (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Cullen328 has dealt with this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For cleaning up everything that went wrong about the RM on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
No problem! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

nomination

I have nominated History of Christianity - again - please take a look and criticize at will. Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Merry Christmas, Extraordinary Writ!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Onel5969! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

University acronym req-moves

Thanks for clearing that mess. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And that's not even half of it. Some Christmas gift! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
+1 Thanks as well. Saw the drama at UVA and had to laugh. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy holidays!
Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Extraordinary Writ, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

RM close

Thanks for this close[4]. Can you explain what you meant by "I therefore cannot give very much weight to !votes (on either side) that list sources rather than engaging with what is prevalent in the sources"? What would be ways of engaging with what is prevalent in sources? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Vice regent, ultimately it's not any different than how we normally determine the common name (i.e., "the name that is most commonly used"). It's trickier when ngrams and Google Scholar aren't available, but there are still ways of doing it, like counting up the Google News results (or a subset of them) that use each name. Just listing out sources, though, doesn't say very much about what is the most common name, especially when both sides have similar lists. Typically there's some flexibility on this, but the guidelines on non-neutral names (WP:POVTITLE and WP:NCENPOV) require me to be a bit stricter than usual. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, this helps. If you have no objections, I'll even quote your opinion in future RMs so as to nudge users to focus on meta data as opposed to just listing more and more articles.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Devin.c.fowler on Delta Crucis (02:11, 31 December 2024)

My formatting for the article "Delta Crucis" is terrible. I would like to roll it back. I wanted to add the Dedication section for my grieving mother for this article for my late brother, who meant more to us than any star in our beautiful night sky --Devin.c.fowler (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

While the dedication is touching, it is not encyclopedic. I have removed it. -- Elphion (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello Devin.c.fowler. I'm very sorry to hear about your brother. It looks like Elphion has rolled back the edit for you. Wikipedia articles use official or widely recognized names for stars, not those sold by for-profit companies (see our article on star naming), so unfortunately it won't be possible to include this information in the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Juandoce on Havyaka Brahmins (19:00, 31 December 2024)

What should I edit --Juandoce (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Juandoce, that's up to you! Maybe the easiest way is just to find an article that's interesting to you, read it, and find ways it could be improved. But if you're looking for more specific suggestions, the Task Center lists lots of different activities that you could get involved in. Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Reopening the requested move closure was a useful and considered act. More time taken to discuss this is probably unlikely to change the eventual close, but I do not believe there had been sufficient time to air all the discussions and thus to reach a true consensus. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's still eligible to be closed at any time, but that particular closure was problematic in several ways and needed to be undone. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from RAVIJANGRA2008 (12:41, 4 January 2025)

ARE THERE ANY HEADS OF WIKIPEDIA AN YTIME I WANT TO EDIT ;[WHICH IS ALTHOUGH CORRECT] THEY UNDO IT AND SAY IT IS THIS OR THAT TYPE WRONG --RAVIJANGRA2008 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@RAVIJANGRA2008 (talk page watcher) There are varying roles which are janitors to clean up messes, but there are no function heads. The whole system is user controlled and governed by consensus. If you have a particular question you wish answered you might wish to ask it at WP:TEAHOUSE, unless you need to talk to this editor particularly. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

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) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of Sophie Ottaway

Hi - I was wondering if it was possible to undelete and draftify the Sophie Ottaway article, as I believe there are some other sources to add to the article which I didn't include in the original (such as The Pulse (PBS)). GnocchiFan (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

GnocchiFan, I've draftified it for you (Draft:Sophie Ottaway), but I would suggest being cautious about moving it back to mainspace: the PBS segment, for instance, is pretty much an interview and is unlikely to change many minds at AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Zkhin-root (23:39, 8 January 2025)

Hello, is it possible to allow automatic advancements in theoretical physics? --Zkhin-root (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Zkhin-root, I'm not sure I understand the question—could you clarify? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the tag

But I just got the strangest message on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries—thanks for the heads-up. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please I need your assistance

@Extraordinary Writ please I want to create article for The Road Does Not End and A Future in Chains, please assist me check if any of them meet WP:GNG. Thanks and happy new year. Bagalamama (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Bagalamama. I think The Road Does Not End is notable: winning the Nigeria Prize for Literature would probably count as a "major literary award" under our notability guideline for books. A Future in Chains would probably be notable too since it's gotten a number of reviews, although you should be aware that some people are uncomfortable using the Nigerian press for notability purposes because of concerns about paid coverage. Hope this helps. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

  • Les Jours and East View Press join the library
  • Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

@Extraordinary Writ I can see that you deleted the page Lalan Chaudhary (politician) on the basis of a deletion discussion. Can you please give me the draft of that deleted article? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

XYZ 250706, done—see Draft:Lalan Chaudhary (politician). Make sure to address the issues raised in the AfD before moving it back to mainspace. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from MaidKari (02:48, 18 January 2025)

hi am i able to write about an image or artwork i have done? and i hope other people cannot edit by description or image. --MaidKari (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello MaidKari. Unless your artwork has received attention from reliable outside sources (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.), it's not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other websites where you can share your artwork with the public. As Wikipedia is the encylopedia anyone can edit, anything you do post here can be edited by others. Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you had deleted Navin Chaddha a couple of years ago after an AfD discussion. I wondered if it would be possible for you to check whether the current recently created article (that I'm reviewing as part of WP:NPP) is largely similar so as to merit speedy deletion, or sufficiently different? Thanks for your help. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-wiki contact

You may get a late response from a barely notable person whose "page" you deleted. I tried explaining two different ways about our processes and limitations, but apparently common knowledge about Wikimedia isn't that common, and some people don't learn by reading (everyone has a mix of learning styles but this might be an extreme example). Bearian (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's about this. Can you see who created the article, and if so, share that information with me? Bearian (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
He wants, in so many words that he doesn't even understand, a WP:REFUND. I'm no longer a sysop, so I can't do it. What can you do? Bearian (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I could also invite him here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC but I'm hesitant. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Bearian, the article was created by Gmccombs in 2016. I'd be reluctant to restore it at this point since it doesn't sound like the notability concerns have really been addressed, but let me know what you think would be helpful. It's normal for new editors to be confused about notability; I guess I'd suggest just focusing on the basics (we need trustworthy sources that talk about you in detail and aren't just interviews). He's certainly welcome to leave me a message here, though I prefer not to communicate off-wiki for this sort of thing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Got it. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

2025

@Extraordinary Writ I want to move the article C. Seetaramulu to Cherupally Seetha Ramulu. Both are different articles on same subject. How to do that? XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ Or You can delete C. Seetaramulu. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
XYZ 250706, I can't delete the older version because it's important to preserve the history. Instead, I've moved your article to Draft:Cherupally Seetha Ramulu. Now you'll be able to move C. Seetaramulu to the right title, and then you can copy over any new sources or information from the draft. When you're done with the draft, you can just leave it be, or I can delete it if you want. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for It Was on a Friday Morning

On 27 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article It Was on a Friday Morning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a U.S. government official ordered that "It Was on a Friday Morning" be removed from a hymnal within 24 hours? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/It Was on a Friday Morning. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, It Was on a Friday Morning), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 21,970 views (915.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting article! Tenpop421 (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it—it was a fun one to write! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Ontheworks (10:49, 28 January 2025)

Hello Thanks for being my mentor --Ontheworks (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ontheworks! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Why was page deleted - Perth Corporate Rumble

The page was deleted in April 2024. The page was dedicated to an annual charity event in Perth. I believe it was not in breach of rules, there was no product promotion. Gregor Barnett (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Gregor Barnett. An event's eligibility for a Wikipedia article depends how much coverage it has received from reliable sources. In this case, there was a deletion discussion held here, and the participants felt that the sources weren't enough. If you're aware of other reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of this event (particularly from outside the local press), feel free to list them here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, i will obtain additional sources. Is it possible to view the deleted page, to cross-reference new sources, so there is no double ups? Gregor Barnett (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Gregor Barnett, the sources in the deleted article were: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Reactivate my Wikipedia Page

Hello... I'm trying to get in touch with you because I've been very confused about why my account was fully removed.

I also received communication from your colleague Brian E. Logan who referred me to reach out to you to get things resolved.

I'm very new at navigating Wikipedia and would really appreciate your support to expedite this process of getting my page back up. Can you help? Carlton Wilborn (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Carlton Wilborn. The article about you was deleted because of this discussion, where it was determined that you aren't notable enough to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. We determine notability by looking at how much coverage a person has received from trustworthy outside sources, like books, newspapers, or magazines. To restore the article, I'd need to see reliable sources that have written in detail about you specifically (interviews don't generally count). The full notability rules are unfortunately long and complicated, but there's a short summary here that you might find useful. Hopefully this helps—let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello Extraordinary Writ (talk),
I must admit this is very frustrating, confusing and poor timing. I'm literally, currently, shopping a scripted series, and my presence in this way as you can imagine can or cannot make an impact.
That said, I took my time and went through the history of my career (dance, acting, life coaching…) as well as, the list of ‘reliable sources’ from the Wikipedia page that Brian sent me.
Below are sources that were in the Green:
*The Huffington Post (several times)
  • The New York Times (several times)
  • The LA Times
  • TV Guide
  • Variety
  • BBC
  • People
  • Broadway World
  • The Hollywood Reporter
  • Yahoo news
  • The Guardian
  • Entertainment Weekly
ARE THE 5 BELOW REALLY NOT RELIABLE?>
The Chicago Tribune (multiple times)
POZ Magazine
HIV Plus Magazine
Chicago Sun-times
Obviously I have lots of questions and so if you could really be an Angel and take a short phone call with me whenever you're available, to expedite the resolution? It would help me navigate what's going on, cuz it doesn't make sense even since I've been going back and forth with Brian?
There are three other dancers from our Madonna tour, and with all due respect, I've had a fuller career across the board and awards, so how are they allowed to have articles, and I can't?
I'm not trying to throw anybody else under the bus, but facts are facts.🤘🏾 I've had a fuller Overall Entertainment Career - dancer & actor (extensive guest starring roles, series regular, starred in a feature film and nominated for a GLADD Award).
I'm also an award-winning author and award-winning motivational speaker.
I was honored by Rahm Emanuel - former Mayor of Chicago, with the proclamation "February 5, 2017 to be CARLTON WILBORN DAY IN CHICAGO in recognition of his extraordinary life & enduring efforts to impact culture, inform community and inspire change."
I could go on...🤷🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️
Also, for 4 years, I was a host & and keynote speaker (alongside the CEO) for Panasonic at CES in Las Vegas. I was also sought out by Merck Pharmaceutical to serve as a life coach, and worked with one of their employees for several months.
And, yes, I have receipts to back up everything I'm saying!
If one looks at the real breath of my professional life, I have absolutely earned a substantial amount of work activity on my own right as Carlton Wilborn. *Is IMDB also not a reliable source? I have extensive credits there?
Please click this link to get a fuller understanding of my world. https://vimeo.com/505414252 (I hope this helps!)
And as I said to Brian, it is honestly not even my nature to want to go on-and-on about what I've done and speaking to people about it. That's not my nature. But in this situation I feel like I need to be extensive in making my case regarding my credibility in the world, that has already been acknowledged by credible sources. I Hope You Understand!
Again, a phone call or video chat would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to reach out via my phone. 213-422-7682
I look forward to your thoughts.
Thank you!
Carlton Carltonrising (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Carlton, you're right that those media outlets are reliable sources. The main issue is that most of them either are interviews (which don't generally count) or just mention you in passing without providing much in-depth coverage. Can you think of any non-interview articles that spend multiple paragraphs talking about you? That's the main thing we're looking for.
Wikipedia notability doesn't always line up with what people expect, since it's based more on press coverage than on people's accomplishments and achievements. I can tell you've lived a really meaningful and impactful life, but the rules don't really take that into consideration: the sources are what matter most. Ultimately we're all volunteers trying to do the best we can, but I know it can be a frustrating process.
For privacy reasons I prefer to keep my communication on the Wikipedia website. Most of us feel the same way, but if you want I can try to find someone who'd be comfortable talking by phone or video. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Extraordinary Writ (talk)...
I very much appreciate you trying to guide me!
Per your question regarding non-interview articles, please see the two links to articles below.
I truly hope these two articles will suffice!
I look forward to your thoughts.
Thank you!
Carlton
Murder's a Drag on The Mentalist
(paragraph 4)
https://www.tvguide.com/news/the-mentalist-murder-drag-1046540
Black Lives Matter Protesters Gather at Academy Headquarters (paragraph 5)
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/protesters-gather-academy-headquarters-selma-1234626506/ Carltonrising (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi... I just went back and looked at the article that was done in TV Guide with me for The Mentalist. I have the actual magazine, and I was trying to send you a screenshot of the article so you can see that the information on me does actually cover two paragraphs (P1. "The broken heal belongs to..." P2. "It was a tall order...") the way that it's laid out in the magazine.
Is there a way I can send you that screenshot,so you have the proof?
Thank you!
Carlton Carltonrising (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Carltonrising: sorry for the delayed response. I've restored the article as a draft, which means you can see it but it's not visible on Google or other such sites. It's at this link. To get it out of the drafting area, you can add more sources and then press the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button; when you do this, it will be reviewed by an independent editor, who will decide whether it meets the notability rules. See this page for more information. The two sources you gave don't talk you in much detail, and I don't want to give you false hope that this process is going to get you anywhere, but ultimately it's up to you how you want to proceed. If you have other questions, you can get the quickest response by going to this page and clicking the big blue button. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you much! 😇🤞🏾🙏🏾 Carltonrising (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

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

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Mihaithebrave (17:32, 5 February 2025)

hi. when is it appropriate to add the word links to things that when you click on them it takes you to a external website or another wiki article. do you do it everytime it is possible or only once per article? --Mihaithebrave (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mihaithebrave. The current guidance is "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence." (For many years the rule was once per article, but this was recently loosened to make things easier for readers on smartphones.) This is just guidance and sometimes you may want to make exceptions, but you definitely don't need to link a term every single time it appears. You might also want to read this section for information about terms that generally shouldn't be linked at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello, I made a small edit on Kemalism page yet the user I am linking below, who's talk page is full of complaints and temporary bans, is trying to start en edit war due to his ideology. Can you as a veteran create a deletion request for him? The user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aybeg Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomkidd00 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Randomkidd00, the place to make a complaint about someone is WP:ANI, but I don't think that would be a good idea, especially since you are edit-warring too. You should try to reach some sort of agreement with Aybeg instead of just reverting him. I notice you've left a note on the talk page, so that's a good start. The word "liberal" did have several citations attached to it, so if you disagree with including it, you should try to find sources that describe Kemalism as not liberal. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking for support/advice for a new editor

Hi! I saw that you've got experience as a mentor and I'm trying to find out if there's any further support that we can offer a very enthusiastic new editor, who's having a bit of difficulty.

They clearly love Mongol history so I've added a request for support/mentoring on the Mongol history project page, but I'm not sure how active it is or if anyone will see it.

If you're able to help, could you please take a look at Draft talk:Siege of Bamyan (1221) & see what you think? I don't want to push them too much, but they do need to change how they edit.

They're really focused on getting one particular article published, but I think they're maybe spending a lot of effort on something they might not ever be ready for mainspace & losing sight of the good work they could do as a whole.

I'm also a little worried about their contribution history as they've got several reverted edits. AirshipJungleman29 has given some advice before, but they're on vacation right now and the user seems pretty receptive.

Can you please help at all or perhaps give some pointers? I'm not sure where else to go and the Teahouse might be a bit too public for me to ask out of the blue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Blue-Sonnet. I think you've done about all you can do at this point, to be honest: you've explained things very clearly and very patiently, and the ball is in Shadow. 547's court now. Hopefully what you've said will get through. If not, the draft will probably be rejected if it gets resubmitted again, which is disheartening but can at least offer some finality. It looks like they've been doing a bit of work on other articles, so that's at least a good start. But I get the sense (partly from the writing style; partly from things like this) that there's a larger maturity issue here, and that means the problems may not be limited to any one area, which can lead to a lot of frustrations for a new editor. I don't really have any suggestions aside from what you're doing, which is to be kind but also clear about the expectations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for looking into that for me, I initially thought there might be a language barrier but their recent responses make me think they're relatively young too. I've got the page watchlisted so I'll take a step back for now and see how things go, thanks again! Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Change to range block you placed

Hi - wanted to let you know that I modified the block you put on 1.46.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to block account creation. Today I found a couple of socks that were created between the expiration of Materialscientist's last block and yours, but with the long history there, better to nip it now. If you left account creation unblocked for a specific reason, please leave me a note and feel free to change it back. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 16:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

2025

@Extraordinary Writ Can you please provide me the draft of the article Uday Narkar which was recently deleted by User:Sandstein? I asked him but he told me to ask someone else at WP:RFU. But I am requesting you for the draft here. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

XYZ 250706, what are you hoping to do with the draft? The consensus in the discussion was that Narkar isn't notable, and that's not a problem that can really be fixed unless new sources become available. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ I am not publishing the draft without any significant change and improvement. I want to improve the draft and will request some editors to work on the draft as well. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
If he's still not notable, there's no point in working on the draft, is there? I think it'd make more sense for you to wait until he receives more coverage, especially since the deletion discussion was so recent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually I have found some information on his role in literature from some books. Hence I wanted to add them. Anyways sorry for the inconvenience. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from AmityBlamity (19:35, 23 February 2025)

What should happen in a situation where a citation is needed, but one hasn't been added/can't be found? Should the offending passage be deleted? --AmityBlamity (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi AmityBlamity. You're always free to remove an uncited statement that you think is dubious, and no one should add it back without citing a source. If there isn't already a "citation needed" tag, some people like to add one first with {{cn}} and then wait a while, but this isn't required, especially if you've looked for sources yourself and come up short. But if you don't think the claim is dubious (i.e., it's very likely true but no one has gotten around to citing it yet), then it's generally best to just leave it be.
Those are basically your three choices: remove, tag, or ignore. It's up to you which one to pick in any given situation, and that decision mainly depends on how questionable you think the claim is. The one exception is contentious claims about living people, which should always be removed immediately if they're not properly sourced. Otherwise, just use common sense and I'm sure you'll be fine! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bruce M. Selya

On 26 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bruce M. Selya, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Extraordinary_Writ/Archive_11&oldid=1286587147"