User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ToadetteEdit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

unblock 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ToadetteEdit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per above, I would like to be unblocked from the projectspace since it is essentially not needed for the time being. I would like to work in some areas like wp:AFC/R which requires editing projectspace, as well as starting deletion discussions during npp patrolling. Thank you!

Accept reason:

ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs) is conditionally unblocked subject to the following:

An indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: spaces, broadly construed, with the following exceptions, which are to be narrowly construed:
- The standard exceptions to bans.
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process.
- Deletion discussions or deletion reviews.
- Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA.
- Participating in, but not starting, a discussion where they are directly involved in a discrete and preexisting dispute (e.g., an editing conflict that is brought to WP:RSN), or are a named party to a dispute (e.g., at WP:DRN).
An indefinite topic ban from requesting additional permissions, broadly construed, regardless of namespace.

For the avoidance of doubt, this conditional unblock does not affect ToadetteEdit's current topic ban from closing discussions (in any namespace).

These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Note from blocking Admin. If there's a solution that allows ToadetteEdit to start AfDs or work in AFC/R, I would not be opposed to that but I disagree with their contention that since it is essentially not needed for the time being. given they only promised to "try" not to apply for advanced permissions and I think the meta areas of the project are too complex for them to effectively edit as we've seen throughout their history and a big part of why they are a time sink for the community. I have extant questions from their RFA about their goals in seeking the mop was to end run protection (Q4/10) but that was not a factor in this block. Star Mississippi 17:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I am not familiar with what led to this project-space block. So I don't know if this would be more trouble than it's worth. But would it make sense to lift the block, but topic ban them from WP-space, with the exception of areas (maybe AFC/R, maybe creating and voting in AFDs without closing them, etc) that are specifically listed? And if they wanted to expand to other areas of WP-space, they would need to seek the blocking admin's permission? Or if that is dumping too much work on SM, get any admin's permission? They would be responsible for not editing anything in WP-space that was not explicitly excluded from the topic ban; if they violated the topic ban, they would be site blocked. I'm not sure if this would satisfy SM, or TE, or both, or neither. I'm not even 100% sure I like these customized topic bans. But I thought it worth suggesting. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd be fine with it being any admin (for whatever the review is) because my on wiki time is consistently inconsistent and I would not want to ever be a hold up. I think the challenge with custom topic bans and this specific editor is that they appear not to do well with gray areas. @Floquenbeam the background is when this editor receives tough (but valid, IMO) criticism on their quest for permissions they flounce. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll/Archive_17#ToadetteEdit:_January_28,_2025,this time, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit, last time. They appear unwilling to take on feedback and continue to dig deeper. @Hey man im josh' assessment (courtesy ping, no action needed) assessment matches mine that it's in good faith, which is why I see this block as protecting TE from TE. They are unwilling/able to stop seeking additional permissions and to realize it's not going to happen. Given they have had blocks from AN and negative feedback on their AfD participation, I'm not sure which project spaces are a good fit for them. Star Mississippi 18:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. From my (admittedly brief) review of their contribs to AFD, it seems like they do OK with nominating articles, which they did as part of their NPP; it was attempting to NAC close them that caused problems. Is there more to it I didn't see?

I'm interested in hearing what project-space areas they're interested in - areas with a very, very low likelihood of disruption. I'm also interested in hearing whether they agree that, in retrospect, all of these requests for permission were disruptive. And, of course, I'd like to hear if they would even agree to a topic ban from everything in WP-space that is not expressly allowed as an unblock condition.

It seems to me like they can probably handle a "you are not allowed to do anything in WP-space beyond the following specific things". If it is true that, without an active block, they won't be able to stop themselves from requesting a permission, or closing an AFD, or anything else not on the approved list, then that's a pretty quick site-wide indef block. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense to me @Floquenbeam and like you, look forward to TE's feedback.

My recollection the AfDs was part of the broader clerking, but I'd have to dig for specifics. I'll try to do that this weekend. Star Mississippi 19:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It has been two days since the last comment; will anybody respond to my request? I do wonder if this unblock request is being held up due to a discussion or so.... ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

How about something like this? I am INVOLVED, so this is not a formal offer of a CONDUNBLOCK; merely a suggestion to SM/Floq/any other admins who happen to stop by:

ToadetteEdit is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia: space, with the following exceptions:

The standard exceptions to bans
They may make any edits related to the articles for creation process
They may participate in deletion discussions
They may request administrator attention to an issue at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA. They may not participate in reports filed by another editor, unless ToadetteEdit is themselves a party to the dispute.

Additionally, ToadetteEdit is topic banned from requesting additional permissions, regardless of namespace.

For the avoidance of doubt, this topic ban does not affect their current topic ban from closing discussions (in any namespace).

This ban may be loosened, either by broadening the exceptions or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN.

ToadetteEdit, are there any other activities you would like to participate in? I don't love how complicated this restriction is, but I really think ToadetteEdit has something to offer. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and would be willing to offer the above conditional unblock or a substantially similar one. The ban should also probably extend to Wikipedia talk. The first bullet is unnecessary because those exceptions apply unless otherwise stated. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I explicitly listed BANEX because we were listing exceptions, but I understand we could have them be implicit. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry for the late response; I have been lately busy for multiple reasons, and so I do not have time to share my thoughts and comments. I will attempt to use the projectspace to clerk the AfC subpages, RM/TR, contesting several requests, and initiating and participating in deletion discussion. I will also refrain from participating in noticeboards, though I will continue participating in community proposals and RfAs. I am willing to abide with the conditional unblock if given. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither voting in RFAs nor community proposals is allowed under this conditional unblock as written @ToadetteEdit. May I recommend slowing down a little on this? Star Mississippi 13:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Nor is RM/TR in the listed exceptions, but I would suggest (again, in my capacity as an interested editor, not wearing my admin hat) that at least making RM/TR requests (as opposed to responding to them) is a reasonable additional exception. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to modifying the list of exceptions. TE, what parts of projectspace do you want to include as exceptions? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I am open to them as well @HouseBlaster @Voorts, but "I'm going to do things you haven't said I can do because I want to" is part of the broader problem with this editor following advice and feedback, which is why I recommend slowing down before rushing into this unblock. Star Mississippi 23:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rush into an unblock. I said I was open to doing one, not that I necessarily will. Once we hammer out the scope of the proposed topic ban, I want to make sure that TE understands why the wider topic ban on projectspace is appropriate and explains how they will avoid a recurrence of the conduct that got them blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be clear @Voorts, I mean TE rushing into it without understanding the big picture and ending up right back here (again). Star Mississippi 01:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I will simply abide by the proposed topic ban, so no participation in community proposals and RfA, and RM/TR clerking. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit: There's been no backroom discussion going on. What parts of projectspace do you want to participate in and why? I think the exceptions should be as narrow as possible. I would also like you to explain how you intend to avoid causing further issues in projectspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this in the last few days and have come to a conclusion;

I should be able to contribute to AfC, where editing projectspace is needed, as well as starting deletion discussions and participating in them.
I will also refrain from requesting any more permissions across the Wikimedia network as it is indeed not helpful for the community and causes stress to myself.
In any case, I was forwarded to a noticeboard or am involved in any situation, I will need to edit the projectspace. This means that I can edit noticeboards only if I am involved in any way, whether directly or indirectly. I will also not be commenting on other threads, nor will I close them, so that I could avoid being condemned by the community.
I will continue to request administrator attention, but not clerk or comment on others.

Hopefully, abiding by these decisions, I will not have disrupted the community and not cause stress to myself due to the reactions. I will heed all the feedback that was given to me and learn from them. If I have a desire to expand to more areas in projectspace, I will request loosening or abolishing the conditional unblock. I understand that if I violate the CONDUNBLOCK, I will be sanctioned. Thank you! ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to give other editors here time to respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This generally seems fine to me. The only thing that gives me a little pause - and it's not a deal-breaker - is the idea of "clerking" stuff related to AFC. Clerking seems (I'm not 100% sure) to be an area that gets you into the most trouble. But I suggest, rather than come up with some kind of a more complicated "AFC except no clerking" rule, that instead this be allowed too; except it would really, really be in your best interests to quickly defer to anyone who tells you that you should do something at AFC in a different way. Disruption at AFC - even if in good faith - would probably quickly lead to a reblock. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam I think that falls under Toadette's 3rd bullet point. They will action AfC submissions, but not participate at WT:AFC unless their action is brought there, in which case they'll respond and (hopefully) listen to the editor who raised a concern about their actions. Generally less fraught there than AN* which does have its share of frivolity as we unfortunately well know. Star Mississippi 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose so; I don't really know the work flow that goes on at AFC. I just noticed that TE said earlier "I will attempt to use the projectspace to clerk the AfC subpages", and don't really know if that's still true, or if it's prevented by bullet 3. I think we need to all be on the same page. It isn't obvious to me that this is included in bullet 3, and the important thing (more important than the exact details that are settled on) is that everyone agrees on what those details are. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking right now:
ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs) is conditionally unblocked subject to the following:

An indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: spaces, broadly construed, with the following exceptions, which are to be narrowly construed:
- The standard exceptions to bans.
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, solely for the purpose of asking for advice about accepting, declining, or rejecting a draft submitted through the AFC process.
- Deletion discussions or deletion reviews.
- Requesting administrator attention at venues such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:UAA.
- Participating in, but not starting, a discussion where they are directly involved in a discrete and preexisting dispute (e.g., an editing conflict that is brought to WP:RSN), or are a named party to a dispute (e.g., at WP:DRN).
An indefinite topic ban from requesting additional permissions, broadly construed, regardless of namespace.

For the avoidance of doubt, this conditional unblock does not affect ToadetteEdit's current topic ban from closing discussions (in any namespace).

These topic bans may be loosened, such as by broadening the exceptions, or repealed entirely, by any uninvolved administrator or by community consensus at WP:AN, after at least six months have passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense to me @Voorts and @Floquenbeam I agree about the need for clarification and clarity. I think Voorts' proposal as of 21:14 makes it more clear. I think the only thing I might add to 4 is that it has to be a pressing need. This should not encourage rapid admin attention when it is a low-level issue. If it can be, it should be left to someone else to report.

And @ToadetteEdit if I may offer one bit of advice, I know you were planning to appeal at the six month mark, which is rapidly approaching. I would suggest not, although I obviously cannot prohibit you from doing so. Star Mississippi 23:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

As the person who proposed your topic ban in the first place and wrote the six month's appeal clause, I cannot echo @Star Mississippi's advice strongly enough. You are obviously permitted to appeal the ban in ~a week, but appealing the instant you are allowed to never goes well. I cannot imagine an appeal would be successful. You are your own worst enemy, ToadetteEdit. The point of this CONDUNBLOCK is to get you out of your own way so you can shine. Not appealing immediately is your first test of being able to get out of your own way, without a sanction formally restricting you from doing so. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 06:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Who said that I would appeal the ban on Feb 25th or later? I currently do not have enough time to contribute effectively, so there is no chance that I would apply immediately. As for the proposed conditional unblock, I would like to be allowed to edit the WT:NPP and join backlog drives. Other than that, it's fine to apply it in practice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You said I will apply as soon as when I successfully appeal my sanction from closing discussions of any sort (I can appeal the sanction starting from February 25th) as I will have understood the guidelines, in particular determining consensus, and learned from others closing them, and my account will be two years old. Since the sanction took effect on me, my activity decreased due to more participation outside this wiki and other real life factors, but I will return back into full activity next month. Which can be very easily read as you're intending to appeal on February 25 especially given your prior timeline assertions.

I personally don't believe you should have full access to WT:NPP but leave that decision to someone else. It's my understanding you can review NPP without using project space but if I'm wrong please let me know. Star Mississippi 18:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What I said on ORCP (I admit I have missed that) is that I would apply for RFA the moment I successfully appeal the ban. I do not mean that I have intentions to appeal the moment I am allowed to, and my account will not be two years old on Feb 25 or a day to two later. I indeed do not want to apply it soon, but after at least a year of the ban. As for the new pages patrol discussion page, it is a venue where others often ask questions related to patrol and seek help. Like the WT:AFC, if any issue is involved by activity, I will show up. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification @ToadetteEdit. I'm not sure exactly what Like the WT:AFC, if any issue is involved by activity, I will show up. means, but if it means you have an occasional specific question about a new article, you can ask. But really, focus on reviews and writing, not discussions Star Mississippi 21:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Why also ban me from the talk namespace. Then how will I be able to submit uncontroversial edit requests to certain pages in projectspace? ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This is what I mean by please slow down and really read the information. You're not banned from talk space and no one is proposing that. Star Mississippi 14:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I proposed a ban from Wikipedia talk, subject to the exceptions above. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That said, I think part of the issues editors have identified is TE's edits in projectspace discussions, so banning from WP talk makes sense. Other editors can make proposals/edit requests to PAGs. I worry that letting TE do that will result in more issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification @Voorts and apologies for misunderstanding your inquiry @ToadetteEdit. That's what I was getting at when I said "But really, focus on reviews and writing, not discussions" and "that it has to be a pressing need. This should not encourage rapid admin attention when it is a low-level issue." so I don't think we disagree thankfully. I think TE not understanding where they're actually banned and isn't is going to be problematic in the end. TE, please focus on articles (writing, accepting) rather than discussing. Star Mississippi 15:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The general idea, TE, is that we're trying to seek a balance between allowing you to do helpful/uncontroversial work in WP space, and continue to prevent you from making unhelpful/controversial edits that wastes other volunteers' time. Yes, with the current recommended scope, you'll be prevented from making uncontroversial edit requests to WP-space pages. But that is because we do not trust you yet to understand what the difference between controversial and uncontroversial. It is not feasible to just say "don't be disruptive", because you have demonstrated that you don't know the difference. It is not feasible to come up with a list of 20 additional WP-space pages you can edit, even if we agree you're not likely to disrupt them, because it takes time and effort from other people to make sure you're abiding by a really complicated topic ban. Part of the reason that people are trying to reduce the scope of your current ban from all of WP-space is so that you can learn (and then demonstrate that you understand) this difference.

At this point, my own personal opinion is that we've beat this horse sufficiently, that Voorts' suggested scope is quite reasonable, and I wouldn't support modifying it anymore. For me, we've reached the point of "take it leave it". Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not willing to modify it further, so take it or leave it is correct. @ToadetteEdit: let me know what you decide. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Floquenbeam for your detailed insight. I totally agree with you & @Voorts and apologies if I confused matters more this morning. TE, you have some good advice here and above from @HouseBlaster. I highly recommend continuing to refer back to them regardless of your next editing steps. Star Mississippi 18:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Then it is what it is. I will abide with the proposed solution. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2025

News and notes: Administrator elections up for reapproval and 1bil GET snagged on Commons

Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World

Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year

In the media: The end of the world

Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read

Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing

Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?

Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors

Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars

Essay: The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source

Obituary: Ümüt Çınar (Kmoksy) and Vinícius Medina Kern (Vmkern)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from ValerieRusty on Talk:Joseph K. Gill (00:43, 1 March 2025)

Hi I just wrote on your site about a 1920 something full note antique jk gill check book contact me if your society is interested in it. It is like new and inscription inside is fancy I can send photos. Valerie --ValerieRusty (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@ValerieRusty, can you clarify this. It seems to be unrelated to Wikipedia editing. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry please remove it 174.25.3.160 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to donate an item that says jk gill ill just get rid of it 1920’s checkbook 174.25.3.160 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

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

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Kaeez06 (19:59, 4 March 2025)

Hello! I had a small question and wasn’t sure if this was the right place to ask, but I thought I’d check anyway. Is there a tool similar to CropTool that allows straightening images on Wikipedia/Commons? I sometimes come across images that could use slight rotation adjustments, and I was wondering if there's an existing tool for that. Thanks in advance, and I appreciate your time! --Kaeez06 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kaeez06, as far as I know, there is no other internal tool like CropTool. But there is a button next to images where one can request to rotate it, although at 45° increments. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow. Fourth nomination

That often suggests UPE

Great minds think alike 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, given the author's disruptive creation move to the mainspace, it could be suggested that the user is engaging in UPE... ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I took the arbitrary decision to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak (4th nomination), but you may wish to transfer your nomination rationale to number three. One of them needed to be closed and three had more overall content than four. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much since I can't perform closes. Anyways your nomination rationale is sufficient so no need to import mine.

When I tapped the button, I got an error saying that there was a deletion template so it was aborted. But I didn't realized that I created the subpage. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In preferences > Gadgets you can choose to enable XFD Closer. I try to use it wisely and with restraint since I am not an admin 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No.. I was topic banned from closing discussions, so turning on the gadget is pointless to me. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Ouch. Not a pleasant thing to happen, and not worth appealing since others will do the task. That is history. I live in the present. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

CVUA training req

Hey there. I previously decided to directly tackle WP:NPPS but my trainer (Cassiopeia) hasn't been active lately, so my progress is rather limited there. Guess I might as well go through CVUA first. Feel free to check my userpage for what I've already done/am doing so far. Have a great day, it's lio! | talk | work 09:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@HKLionel, thank you for choosing me to be your CVUA trainer. Your course should be ready within 24 hours. ToadetteEdit (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) it's lio! | talk | work 12:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from InfinityMitt (15:44, 10 March 2025)

Hi, I've created a new article and submitted Publish. What happens next? It doesn't appear when I search for it. --InfinityMitt (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@InfinityMitt, if you click on "publish changes" in the editor, the article will be created unless there is some error. If you are submitting a draft, do not worry; one of the reviewers will review your draft and accept it if the topic is worthy of an article. Please note that new articles are not indexed unless 90 days passed or a reviewer marks the article as reviewed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Nik Dr.X (12:56, 15 March 2025)

Hello, could you tell me how to edit English articles correctly? --Nik Dr.X (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nik Dr.X, you can read the Help:Introduction. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Urgent: Review of Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Articles

@ToadetteEdit , The "Jagadguru Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranandah Saraswatee" article you accepted, now marked for speedy deletion, duplicates content from my March 6th article, "Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati." Revision history confirms my article's priority. Multiple declined drafts also exist. I request immediate review and consolidation. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@MH-wiki2025, the best way is to redirect the first title. I wasn't aware of the article. I am currently not on home wifi, so I can't act right now. ToadetteEdit (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Impact of the 2024 CrowdStrike incident

Hello, ToadetteEdit. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Impact of the 2024 CrowdStrike incident".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

CVU Academy Request for Mentoring

Greetings,

I am intrested in mentoring under you, for the CVU: Academy, to better improve my vandalism skills. My time zone is EsT (Not ideal but, you were the closest available trainer) twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 01:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Twistedmath, thank you for choosing me. I will set up a course in the next 24 hours, after checking if you are suitable or not. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

From the editor: Hanami

Opinion: Talking about governments editing Wikipedia

News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia

In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual

Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far?

Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players...

Gallery: WikiPortraits rule!

Essay: Unusual biographical images

Obituary: Rest in peace

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi.

im the one that created the amberol record list. I wanted to inform you that these are a diffirent type of record entirely, so I couldn't add it to blue amberols. Im also going to expand the article in the future, with the series having over 1000 recordings. so if this has convinced you, please re-review the article.

best regards (: Ungus bagungus the 3rd (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ungus bagungus the 3rd, I currently do not have time to review your submission. You can continue to expand the article, and you can then resubmit it so that another reviewer can review and potentially accept it. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 5

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 10 March. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

Wikimania 2025: Program submission is still open until March 31. Apply now to speak at Wikimania 2025.
Research Fund: The 2025 Wikimedia Research Fund is launching, inviting proposals from researchers aiming to advance free knowledge through Wikimedia projects. Submit your proposal before April 16.
Central Notice Training: Learn more about updates to the Central Notice Guidelines by joining a Central Notice Requester training on March 26 at 14:00 UTC.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Design System: Learn more about Wikimedia’s Codex design system and how to use it while designing for Wikimedia projects.
Tech News: The improved Content Translation tool dashboard is now available in 10 Wikipedias and will be available for all Wikipedias soon; on Wikimedia Commons, a new system to select the appropriate file categories has been introduced. More updates from tech news week 11 and 12.
P&T Annual Planning: The Product & Technology department publishes its plans early in the annual planning process, which is on Meta-Wiki and open for feedback. These objectives and key results are not a list of projects, but instead, a set of directions for problems to solve and impacts to achieve over the course of the year. We look forward to engaging with the community on this plan.

Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki

Resource Support Pilot: The pilot project on English Wikipedia to fund small resource requests (like books) to support editors in improving content has moved to the next phases of the discussion.
Wikisource Conference: Some highlights from the Wikisource Conference 2025 in Bali.
ESEAP Hub: Future plans for the ESEAP Hub one-year pilot project.

Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

Litigation review: Read key points of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal work last year to protect free and open knowledge broadly, and the Wikimedia volunteers and projects in particular.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

Affiliations Committee: Announcement of the 2025 Affiliations Committee Appointments.
Wikimedia MKD: Recognition of Wikimedia MKD User Group.
Wikimedia Community User Group Burundi: Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Burundi.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The People's Recorder podcast

I would like to republish an article you flagged for soft deletion The People's Recorder Podcast. I am unable to find a way to make suggested changes to attributions. Esoser (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Esoser, if you want to recreate the article, create it as a draft since it will be deleted again under a criterion of speedy deletion if you publish it directly in mainspace. But please only create the article if it meets notability guidelines demonstrated by reliable sources. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. Esoser (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I have completed the draft of The People's Recorder article with revisions and would like it to be published. Can I move the draft to main space? Thanks. Esoser (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Esoser, if you see that the draft meets the notability guidelines among other policies and guidelines, then you can move it to the mainspace. You should ensure that you address the issues with the draft before publishing. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Adedayo1987 (01:40, 26 March 2025)

Hi how can I create my own article . Am an actor , a photographer, cinematographer and content creator. I want people to know me --Adedayo1987 (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adedayo1987, I advise you against creating an autobiography. To create an article, use the article wizard, but please first read our introduction to learn how to edit. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Law_on_languages_of_peoples_of_the_Russian_Federation

I am asking you, whether my changes are correct. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I will check the draft soon. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Broomfield Ua, I've replied on the draft's talk page. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, ToadetteEdit. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: LaundryPizza03
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from MountainHobo (01:53, 31 March 2025)

Hey I was wondering if it possible that if I find a subject without a page on it can I take the liberty and create a quality page? --MountainHobo (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@MountainHobo, if the subject is notable enough, then you can create an article. Be sure to read the introduction, and use the Article wizard to help you create an article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi

You do know you can RFD req drafts? this? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme, the reason why I am nominating at AfD is that it is an article, and AfD has more participants than MfD which is for user pages and other pages which do not fit the other XfDs. I do remember someone saying that an AfD is better for a draft that was declined multiple times at AfC, but that was a year ago, and I could not remember that page. Also noting that the page was at mainspace before being turned into a draft. ToadetteEdit (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sorry Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit, it is unacceptable to move a page just so it can be subject to a deletion discussion. If a draft is resubmitted after rejection, you should nominate it at MFD. If not, leave it be. Articles in draft space do no harm. Best regards, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for the late reply, but I will not do so again. I do remember one who moved an article to draftspace and MfD'd it. What I did yesterday was just a bad idea caused by my bad judgment and decision-making. But currently, there is no way to replace the AfD with the MfD. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 6

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 21 March. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

Progress on the Annual Plan: Six-Month Snapshot.
Global Trends: A message from Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees on global trends and strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.
Wikimedia Hackathon: The registration to attend the Wikimedia Hackathon is still open until midnight April 13.
Central Asia Wikicon: The Central Asian WikiCon 2025 will take place on April 19–20 in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Infrastructure: How crawlers impact the operations of the Wikimedia projects.
Tech News: The CampaignEvents extension will be released to multiple wikis (see deployment plan for details) in April 2025; The Editing team is working on a new Edit check: Peacock check. This check’s goal is to identify non-neutral terms while a user is editing a wikipage. More updates from tech news week 13 and 14.
Wikifunctions: Read the latest status updates.

Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki

Wikipedia Library: What’s new from January to March 2025.
Let's Connect Learning Clinic: Missed the last Learning Clinic on "Safe Spaces, Strong Voices: Advancing Inclusion through the UCoC"? Recording is now available.

Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

Transparency report: The Wikimedia Foundation’s publishes its latest Transparency Report covering the period from July to December 2024. View highlights from the report.
Global Advocacy: Read the latest developments on public policy advocacy from Wikimedia Foundation's Global Advocacy team.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: quarterly Metrics Reports

Wikimedia Enterprise: Wikimedia Enterprise Partners with ProRata.ai to Champion Sustainable Search Engine Practices.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

Elections Committee: Wikimedia Foundation Governance Committee has appointed a new Elections Committee.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 15:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Engage5w (14:55, 7 April 2025)

My goal is to create a Wiki page for my client. How many edits do I have to make before I can create a page? --Engage5w (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Engage5w, there is no minimum edit requirement to create an article. But you must be autoconfirmed (have an account that is four days old and has ten edits) to directly create articles in the mainspace. The Article wizard is always open for new users who want to create articles. But users with a conflict of interest are advised to use the AfC process (I.e. article wizard), and it becomes apparent that you have a conflict of interest in "the client" that you are referring to in your comment. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Pending AfC submission

Courtesy link: Draft:Congratulations (Traveling Wilburys song)

Hello ToadetteEdit, You marked the above submission as "review in progress" 7 days ago. I just thought I would let you know. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I've accepted this draft. Normally I would wait until the G6 speedy request is acknowledged, but I must have forgot this. Thanks for the heads up though. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

No problem, I just saw the draft lingering in the category. Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)