User talk:TarnishedPath/Archive 3#Talk:Amazonian craton#Requested move 27 March 2025

I know he isn't Canadian. I was cleaning up a dab link in the nav box by changing it to a Disambiguation foo redirect. RCSCott91 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:@RCSCott91, the dab link that you've added redirects to Far-right politics in Canada which is where the nav box directed to prior to your edit. What's the point of your edit? TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::To inform someone that the redirect is intentional and not simply the result of a move.

::But you are right, normally the nav box module should be updated for something like this. If I'm not mistaken, I originally looked at template "world topic" and realized that it wouldn't allow for a specific redirect based for a topic but does allow for a Disambiguate redirect based on specific country for individual nav box placement situations like this.

::I will look again once I get to my laptop to verify that I am not misremembering how the template is set up.

::RCSCott91 (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::The world topic template doesn't allow that change in the module. The work around to fix a dab link created by its placement in a topic seems to be the Disambiguation link option edit that I did or create a new for precise article that the Nav box will instead link to. RCSCott91 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet from Dominic Pringle just added the same disputed "author of the modern incel ideology" bullshit, but this time changed it to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1266505858&oldid=1266309037&title=Elliot_Rodger central figure of the incel community]". I have requested for extended protection because it is honestly getting frustrating with the number of sockpuppets getting created and adding unsourced shit. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Shoot for the Stars make sure you report them at WP:SPI. TarnishedPath^talk 00:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I have done so already and they have been blocked. The article was also extended-protected for one year. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Shoot for the Stars good stuff. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:List of political parties in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

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

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

File:Octicons-tools.svg 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.

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Moira Deeming/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Moira Deeming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Moira Deeming you nominated as a good article has failed File:Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Moira Deeming for reasons why Talk:Moira Deeming/GA1{{!}}the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading :File:Monica Smit.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Tlx|Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=TarnishedPath&namespace=6}} this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey,

Quick question-what are the requirements for AfC reviewer status? Thanks (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 13:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:@3OpenEyes, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. TarnishedPath^talk 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the March 2024 AfD on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

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

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

A user keeps reverting the change on Seung-Hui Cho from "mass murderer" to "South Korean man", claiming that it violates MOS:CRIMINAL. They said other pages about mass murderers like Elliot Rodger and Stephen Paddock should follow suit. What is your opinion on this? All these articles have had them known as mass murderers for years and now this editor is going to keep reverting without consensus. It seems rather disruptive, to be honest. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Shoot for the Stars the article passed two GA reviews on 24 May 2007 and 5 October 2007, presumably with that wording in the lead. It's a ridiculous argument that it violates MOS:CRIMINAL. Per the guideline {{tq|When the person is primarily notable for a reason other than the crime, principles of due weight will usually suggest placing the criminal description later in the first paragraph or in a subsequent paragraph (e.g. Martha Stewart, Rolf Harris, Roman Polanski). If the crime is not a significant part of the person's notability (e.g. Tim Allen, convicted of a felony 16 years before his rise to fame), it may be undue to mention in the lead at all}}". In the case of Cho, their primary notability is the mass murders and it belongs in the first sentence of the lead per MOS:FIRSTBIO.

:If the reverting has gone back and forth, I'd suggest starting a discussion in the article's talk. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I was honestly just trying to de-escalate an interpersonal conflict I found myself in with another editor I didn't really know at all. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Simonm223 no worries. My main concern was with correcting it so it didn't stay confusing. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah. I really didn't care much one way or the other as long as my efforts finding reliable sources were visible to the editors who explicitly asked for them. I didn't much appreciate "fulfilling a request" being referred to as "bludgeoning" just because there were a lot of bits expended in fulfillment; contextualized quotes from academic sources are going to run a little long. So I figured I'd demonstrate that what I was trying to do was just fulfil the requests of my interlocutors by fulfilling that one. It... didn't work well. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Don't worry about it too much. Sometimes we brush up against others. I've had some minor conflict with the same editor and it's not worth worrying about. They mean well, they are just a bit fast to judgement. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: {{tq|Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.}}
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE. {{cot|Details of the balanced editing restriction}}

:* In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.

:**This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.

:**Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.

:* They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).

:* This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.

:* Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

{{cob}}

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed}}

Do you think the article is good enough to nominate for GA? I have seen you with multiple GA articles in this area so I want to make sure things are ready. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Shoot for the Stars, what you can do to determine if it is ready for a GA nomination is request a peer review. TarnishedPath^talk 06:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Ps, let me know if/when you do either and a review starts. I'm willing to help out. TarnishedPath^talk 06:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Ross Ulbricht on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

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

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Arcticocean

|Wugapodes

}}

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Firefly

|L235

}}

File:Oversight logo.png Oversighter changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Firefly

|Guerillero

|L235

|Moneytrees

}}

File:Octicons-tools.svg 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. {{phab|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. {{phab|T56145}}

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)}}

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

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 23 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article StoneToss, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that X's rules were changed when StoneToss sought help from Elon Musk after an anti-fascist group published materials claiming to have revealed their identity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/StoneToss. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2024-11-13&end=2024-12-03&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=StoneToss StoneToss]), 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.

}} Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

please consider closing the move discussion at Talk:Zalman Teitelbaum Esotericmadman (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Esotericmadman I've closed the discussion. I've submitted it for a technical move. TarnishedPath^talk 08:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanx Esotericmadman (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

I have set up a peer review for the article if you're still interested. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Shoot for the Stars, I've put the review page on my watchlist. TarnishedPath^talk 04:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you reverted 19 recent edits on the Zionism page - eight of which were "failed verification" templates that I added over the last couple of days after thoroughly examining the references, another 8 - my edits not related to failed verification, and 3 more - completely unrelated edits made by other editors.

The explanation you provided for the revert was {{tq|It is not clear that all of these claims of failed verification are correct}}, that is, you don't seem to have any specific evidence that any of those claims were in fact incorrect and you have just made a wholesale revert of those 8 well-researched edits, along with 11 totally unrelated ones, based on nothing but a hypothetical possibility that some of them may be incorrect.

I find this absolutely unreasonable and would appreciate it if you could self-revert this, and if you have any specific source-based objections to any of my failed verification claims, please revert just those specific edits and I'll be happy to discuss those edits in Talk. DancingOwl (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:@DancingOwl, I reviewed one of the instances in which you placed failed verification and I disagreed that the source did in fact fail verification. On that basis I determined I couldn't trust the rest of your placements of failed verification. Please discuss it in the article talk. TarnishedPath^talk 23:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Thanks for reviewing the Page I started -- Lausingen (Island), does it requires more references or it's fine?? JesusisGreat7 (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:@JesusisGreat7, per WP:GEOLAND {{tq|[p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low}}. I was able to determine it had a population with a quick search, however the article is at present lacking any details about it's population, E.g., numbers, is the population spread throughout the island or in one town, etc. You could improve the article by adding such details and supporting references which are WP:SECONDARY, reliable and WP:INDEPENDENT. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 29 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the first standalone street toilets to cater to both men and women in Auckland were converted into a male-only facility during the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2024-11-19&end=2024-12-09&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Symonds_St_Public_Conveniences_and_Former_Tram_Shelter Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter]), 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.

}}  — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Template talk:Redirect for discussion on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

The bouncing Wikipedia logo on your talk page is very annoying, and probably a violation of WP:SMI's "disrupt the MediaWiki interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable". Please consider removing it. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Mitch Ames, I've moved it to the right and decreased the size. It's now in an area of the screen that doesn't contain any links. Is that sufficient to address your concerns? TarnishedPath^talk 06:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::Depending on the browse window width and content, it can still cover up the Reply and Subscribe links, and some of the body text. Also it is an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue, because it violates MOS:ANIMATION. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, I've removed it. TarnishedPath^talk 07:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have a minute, would you please review my comment and the closure draft I made for this one. Thanks!

Wikipedia:Closure requests#c-Dw31415-20250303021600-Chetsford-20250302194200 Dw31415 (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Dw31415 I'm about to go into a meeting for the next hour and 15 minutes. If you're willing to wait I'll have a look when I'm out of the meeting. TarnishedPath^talk 22:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::No rush, thanks. No one else has come along to help. Dw31415 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Dw31415 I got a bit of time because the meeting was moved. Bearing in my mind that my closing experience is limited, this is a very straight forward RFC to assess. There is clearly consensus against including Michelle.

:::On the question of removing the section completely, just because it didn't form part of the original RFC question, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider if consensus was formed for it. However, while it was discussed by some editors I don't see that there was sufficient dicussion by all RFC participants to form consensus on that question and would state that further discussion should occur. TarnishedPath^talk 22:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks! Can I list you as providing a second opinion? Dw31415 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Dw31415 is it needed? It's your close. TarnishedPath^talk 00:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::not need. thanks for reviewing. Dw31415 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Jarry1250

|Lethe

}}

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|AmandaNP

|Drmies

}}

File:Oversight logo.png Oversighter changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AmandaNP

File:Green check.svg 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.

File:Octicons-tools.svg 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. {{phab|T378488}}
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the {{#special:Nuke}} tool. {{phab|T376378}}

File:Info Simple bw.svg 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.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi there, and thank you for your help with NPP! I wanted to reach out because I noticed you nominated the article বাগিরঘাট উচ্চ বিদ্যালয় ও কলেজ for A7 speedy deletion. Although this article has now been deleted, I wanted to bring it to your attention as I reminder to do multiple checks before nominating an article for speedy deletion. In this case, the article was for an educational institution (Bagirghat High School and College), which does not qualify for A7. Additionally, another editor had already nominated the article for A7, which an administrator had declined; the reminder here is to make sure you check the page history before nominating an article for speedy deletion. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 9 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Sewell attempted to recruit Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, into the Lads Society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2024-11-29&end=2024-12-19&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Thomas_Sewell_(neo-Nazi) Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)]), 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.

}}  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Re:WP:BER: It's still a bit experimental at this point. None of us really know whether it will help at PIA. None of us know what those working at AE would consider to be gaming that restriction. I don't personally know how the edit filter works, but I'm assuming it counts edits rather than looking at anything like amount of content; amount would tend to encourage padding to game and discourage the removal of unuseful content, while in theory numbers, even if gamed, could encourage things like making small helpful edits. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Valereee do you think a request for clarification/amendment might be helpful? Because to me that looks like gaming. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::I actually just started an essay, currently at user:valereee/Using the balanced editing restriction. You (or anyone) is welcome to contribute, it's in user space only because I'm still at the 'throw up on the page' stage of trying to even get my thoughts together. Valereee (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Valereee I'll have a read tomorrow. TarnishedPath^talk 13:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take a look at my recent closure to provide a second opinion? Please see Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#RfC on article NPOV and accuracy Dw31415 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Note, picked to you ask because I appreciated your clarifying comment on another RfC. Dw31415 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Dw31415, given some of the fallacious arguments being used and the obvious misrepresentation of sources by some participants in that RFC, and particularly because it is a contentious topic area, I would have left it to an admin to close. Per WP:BADNAC:

::{{tq|A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations:}}

::#{{tq|The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial.}}

::TarnishedPath^talk 02:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Makes sense. Thanks. I took it up when the survey was unanimous so it didn’t seem like the close would be controversial. I’ll give my ask for help (on the closure page) a couple of days to sit. Maybe someone more experienced can see a path forward. Thanks for the advice. Dw31415 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 03:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at COVID-19 lab leak theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Just10A (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:You just violated 3RR, (yes, a reversion without using the "undo" button counts). Please follow policy and do not do so again. Just10A (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Just10A, per WP:3RR "{{tq|[a]n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period}}". In future please desist from accusing editors of breaching policies which they haven't breached. Kind Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You did breach it, here are the diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280353496], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280349667], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280196777]. Just because you're not using the "undo" button does not make it not a revert. In the last diff you undid every edit between yours and @Alexpls. Just10A (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Please read WP:3RR again, specifically the part that states "more than three reverts". Please undo your last revert at Special:Diff/1280355614 in which you cast WP:ASPERSIONS in your edit summary. Please note that even if I had breached WP:3RR, which I didn't, that would not be a policy based reason for your to revert like you claim in your edit summary. Please refer to exceptions to edit warring at WP:3RR#Exemptions. TarnishedPath^talk 03:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Labour Party (UK) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

I had to find your response in the archives, but you are correct about the 3RR issue and I apologize for my misreading. That being said, you certainly don't fall into the "exemptions" like you said and the behavior would almost certainly be considered edit warring with 3 reverts of that nature on the same issue. However, you are correct about the violation of the bright-line rule, and that should be said for clarity. Just10A (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You are conflating smoking-gun evidence with other kinds of evidence, like circumstantial. There is no definitive evidence that it originated in the markets either. Credible media reports lay this out. See the Vanity Fair article [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/inside-the-fbis-lab-leak-investigation?srsltid=AfmBOoonrCVKndgKOtZp8YCoc_g8xVyquQ_jJMvn_ZCnSCFuTU6St4MY as an example.]The underlying article is wildly slanted by any objective, reasonable standard and the reflexive resistance to correcting outdated information and biased language displays a lack of good faith. Wikipedia deserves better. Dancasun (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just10A (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

@TarnishedPath: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there was an error while archiving [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1280952460]. I couldn't find the archived threads on Talk:Gupta_Empire/Archive 1. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Garudam, thankyou for drawing that to my attention. There was a blacklisted url in one of the discussions which stopped all of the discussions from being saved in the archive. TarnishedPath^talk 23:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::I get it now. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 00:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I have set up the Elliot Rodger article for GA. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Shoot for the Stars make sure you close off the peer review request and ping me when the GA review starts. TarnishedPath^talk 05:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{moved|Talk:Peter Dutton#Peter Dutton picture}}

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

:@Idoghor Melody, there's three reliable sources, which have WP:SIGCOV of the subject. That is a WP:GNG pass. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monica Smit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Monica Smit was ordered to pay Victoria Police's legal bill of about A$250,000, despite winning a lawsuit against them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monica Smit. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2024-12-27&end=2025-01-16&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Monica_Smit Monica Smit]), 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, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=Apologies, I shouldn't' have allowed myself to be sucked into an edit war and should have utilised noticeboards. It won't continue. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)|accept=Thanks and no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

File:Emoji_u1f610.svg Of course it won't continue. The other editor is blocked indefinitely, and it seems to be an editor-specific problem. I'll probably unblock as there is no preventative need to keep this up, but I'd like to take perhaps half an hour to think about the whole situation again first, and I think it won't hurt if you do too before continuing to edit. I don't object to anyone unblocking faster than me in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I need to notify you of this. kindly, AnExtraEditor (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I am too far behind on the conversation on that talk page to catch up, but would be willing to offer my two cents if you want me to comment on something in particular. Because of the formatting of that whole discussion, I just don't know for certain what everyone is talking about. Thanks for working on that article! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:All good. The editor has been trying to claim that I am in a one against many situation, that there are four editors for the addition of "and society" and only me against. Their numbers include you as one of the four when your last statement on it was that you didn't think it's necessary but that it's not a big deal for you. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::My approximate understanding of that phrase was that it was accurate and adequate either way, but the back and forth between you and Moxy makes me wonder if I should look into it more. Thanks for summarizing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Most of the back and forth between myself and moxy was a discussion about whether "white settler society" or "Euro-Canadian culture" was better, nothing to do with the addition of "and society" on the end of "Euro-Canadian culture". They made an edit which added that Canada was a settler society, to the prose and I'm happy with that as a compromise. The issue now is the other editor is continuing to push "and society" claiming that there 4 for it and 1 against when that is simply not the case. I'm not sure if they are misinterpreting what others write or if they're straight up gaslighting. TarnishedPath^talk 04:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please relist the RM? There was only one participant, some of us missed this one (it was only listed once, for the seven days. There are so many RM's on de-capping), and, most importantly, this topic may be covered by MOS:GEOCAPS. Please read GEOCAPS and see if you agree that it may (emphasize "may") cover these articles about named and defined places on Earth which have been uppercased since 2013 with no complaint. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Since there are only two editors involved, the nominator {{u|Dicklyon}} and the supporter {{u|Cinderella157}}, will alert them to this request to see if they can argue, and are 100% sure, that MOS:GEOCAPS does not count. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Just a note that your ping didn't work because you got my name wrong and when you corrected it, the edit didn't have its own signature. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, it applies. And it links more specific relevant advice such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Names of classes, which says "As usual, we look to sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized." That's what I did in proposing these moves, as with plates, terranes, triple junctions, and such. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Randy Kryn, as @Dicklyon states above they referenced that the sources have inconsistent capitalisation and that therefore per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS we should not captialise. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Names of classes supports this. TarnishedPath^talk 23:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The only reason I'm not following up on this (the closing, when only one week goes by and only one editor comments, that seems an automatic relist, especially when a large number of articles are nominated in the same RM) is that I'm not all-that familiar with the word or geographical feature craton. Unlike, importantly, the fact that MOS:GEOCAPS should cover the Earth's named tectonic plates which were inappropriately lowercased in a recent RM (North American Plate, for example, is unarguably a defined geographical place and used as a proper name and proper noun [https://www.britannica.com/science/North-American-Plate by major sources], even if some lowercased sources exist). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::When I closed I took into account WP:RMRELIST, {{tq|In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing}}. I have noted it is community practice to relist up to twice when there is no participation or when the outcome seems like it may be no consensus. However I don't think it's out of line to close after one relist when there has been some participation, however minimal. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::There was no relist on this RM, which is why I was questioning it. As I said, that's fine with me now, a relisting probably wouldn't change the entire outcome and might further waste editor's time, but it would have been nice if someone from the geo wikiproject would have chipped in about the solidness of defined cratons. The Wikiprojects, as a whole, have really been emptied and neglected, which is too bad after the "golden era of WikiProjects". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Although...individual craton titles, such as the predominance of [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=North+China+craton&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 North China Craton in the n-grams] shows that some of them were wrongly listed in the RM and thus achieved a probable incorrect close. I haven't checked any others, but North China Craton bodes pretty badly for the accuracy of the RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=South+China+craton&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 South China Craton is predominantly uppercased in the n-grams as well] and, combined with MOS:GEOCAPS, should have been kept capped. Did you check all of the entries before closing the RM to see if bunching all of those together did well for the encyclopedia? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Going back to the policy, If there is any inconsistency then we should presume the craton bit is not part of the proper name and not capitalise.

:::::::::That said, I will endevour to notify wikiprojects more often, and have been doing so lately. As you say, not that it probably makes any difference, but who knows. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks. According to those n-grams I listed above there were mistakes by {{u|Dicklyon}} in listing the RM entries which included titles which are obviously uppercased. And you made the mistake of thinking the RM had been relisted when it had not. Seems a candidate for a reopening and relisting, at least piecemeal after someone checks the n-grams of each item. If you relist I'll comment, as MOS:GEOCAPS seems to apply towards uppercasing in at least the North and South China items (I haven't checked any others to see if the pattern of misplaced nominations exists in more of them). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Randy, you know me, and you know darn well those were carefully considered, not mistakes. The difference between our articles on the North and South China cratons is that the former was capitalized in Wikipedia since 2007, and the latter only since 2013. If you turn off the smoothing in the n-grams you can see the spikes in capitalization in 2007 and 2013, respectively, as sources copied us. We can't fix that, but we can stop making it worse, by being more consistent in using our own style, instead of getting into capitalization positive feedback loops with our copiers, as you're been promoting. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Cinderella157, do you have any input? TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Firstly, WP:RMCIDC states: {{tq|No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy}} and {{tq|Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus.}} TarnishedPath, you have acted in the spirit and letter of the pertinent guidance. Craton is a class name and not inherently part of proper names, though we might capitalise it as if it were if this were always done per NCCAPS. My comment at the RM was based on a sample. I have now had a brief look at all the articles. This is not a particularly common term and it is also a "specialist" term, subject to WP:SSF and capitalised as a term of art - but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. As Randy should know, specificity is not a defining property of proper names. Looking at these as a group, several don't have ngrams, most appear to have a relatively small ngram sample set and there is significant fluctuation (noise). The ngrams presented are for the raw search term and do not exclude expected title case uses, such as headings and titles of citations. An allowance, often stated at 10%, needs to be made for such uses when considering ngrams and generally, results should be confirmed against google scholar and/or google books. It have looked at the south and north China cratons reasonably closely. The raw ngram data for the most recent year is 80% and 77% respectively. I also see in sources that the term is often given as an initialism. Since it is a style to capitalise an expanded term to introduce an initialism, such uses do not reasonably indicate necessary capitalisation since that is not our style per MOS:EXPABBR. Having looked at all of the titles, I only see one for which there might be an argument for capitalisation. However, the evidence across these articles indicates that it is not necessary to cap the class noun craton when used with a location name that is a proper name. Capitalisation on WP is essentially a statistical question and I would consider that article to be a statistical outlier and not treated as an exception from the group. Having said this, my view is that if Randy thinks there is a particular substantive case where craton should be capitalised as an exception to this RM, then perhaps he might propose an RM, without prejudice because of this RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:TarnishedPath, {{u|Dicklyon}}'s misdirection is likely meant for you and not for me, as he and I have had this discussion before. Dick likes closers and editors to disregard percentages (and 80% uppercased is an uppercased proper name) by saying it's Wikipedia's fault that it's a proper name. How the proper name came to be is not our concern, just that it's a proper name now, in present time. You don't downcase something just because Wikipedia uppercases it, which is what Dick says above. There is no policy, guideline, or essay which says that we go the opposite way because of a guess. The entire RM is arguably broken because some of the nominated articles were wrongly nominated (I haven't checked further than the two listed above) and were then caught in a close (like catching mermaids in a fish net). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Randy Kryn, I've re-opened and relisted the discussion. I've also notified Wikiproject geology again (I'd done so previously). TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. As I mentioned, would be nice to have a geology editor commenting as I'm not sure what the craton status is considered within the field. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Can Move+ do [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barberton_Greenstone_Belt&diff=1284053457&oldid=1284023393 this] as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barberton_Greenstone_Belt&diff=prev&oldid=1284023393]. I don't have the time or motivation to do all of the many cratons. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Mitch Ames No, unfortunately not. That bit is very manual. I went through and did all the first sentences, but reading each article to find all instances is a lot of effort. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::AWB will do most of the hard work, but at a minium, we'd need to:

::# enumerate all the link targets (so AWB can find articles that link to Xxxx craton)

::# write a regex to handle all of the names

::# manually check each edit so as not to update "Xxxx Craton" when it is part of a reference name

::1 and 2 probably aren't too bad, but 3 is the time-consuming part. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:: {{small|And I really do need to make an effort to cut down the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia. {{frown}} Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)}}

:::I'm using @BilledMammal's version of Move+ (see User:BilledMammal/Move+). Unfortanetly they stopped editing after WP:ARBPIA5 and so it is not maintained.

:::@Frost has forked from BMs (see Polygnotus/Move+). Perhaps they'd be willing to implement a change per what you were asking about. I used their script for a while but I stopped because it adds pages to the watchlist, which I found undesirable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

File:ANEWSicon.png

File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg Administrator changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Giraffer

|Goldsztajn}}

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg {{hlist|class=inline

|Cyclonebiskit

|Nohat

|Someguy1221

}}

File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg Bureaucrat changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49

File:Checkuser Logo.svg CheckUser changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 0xDeadbeef

File:Oversight logo.png Oversighter changes

:File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GB fan

:File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Moneytrees

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}} {{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Chambers is notable for two things; for being a distinguished academic in his field, and for being the subject of high-profile lese majeste prosecution in Thailand. The widespread coverage of him, and his case, demonstates both. BLP1 therefore does not apply.

All of this is all over the global news media, courtesy of all the usual WP:RS. I propose the removal of your tagging from the article, for the reasons given above; if you disagree, please reply to me here. — The Anome (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:@The Anome, no worries. I've removed it. I would suggest adding sources which focus on them being a distinguished academic. When I performed searches I only found the Thai criminal charge. TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's because being front-page news will blast all other coverage off the top of Internet searches. I'm doing more on this now. — The Anome (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@The Anome, I thought that was a possibility which is why I didn't move to draft.

:::Happy editing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've already found a list of awards and distinctions [https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/imperia/md/content/fakultaeten/wiso/ipw/croissant/mitarbeiter/cv_-_paul_chambers.pdf here]. Thanks for removing the tag. — The Anome (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you perhaps take a look at the Russell Brand article and the changes I've proposed on the talk page? This is the second time I've tried to open this discussion there and it's just not happening. Maybe I've worded it all confusingly, I have a feeling the paragraphing is wrong. I trust your knowledge as an experienced editor. GhulamIslam (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:@GhulamIslam, the last time you made an edit to the article was 14th of February, which is almost 2 months ago. If you think there are edits that need to occur, be WP:BOLD. If you get reverted then ping the editors who revert you, into the discussion you've already started.

:Myself I'm not interested in Russel Brand. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/LaundryPizza03&diff=prev&oldid=1284897512 moved] your question for the candidate to the questions section. Each editor may only ask two questions and it's formalized, so it's best to keep specific questions in the section set aside for them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks. TarnishedPath^talk 12:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I have noticed you adding these incorrect link anchors "ealand Wikipedians' notice board" several times now. The latest was in

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Te_Awa_o_Mokot%C5%AB%C4%81raro&diff=prev&oldid=1285364289. Can you please check why this is happening. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Nurg, the cause is some issue with the Move+ script.

:Pinging @Frost, Move+ is cutting the "New Z" off the front of "New Zealand" when leaving comments in move discussions that the New Zealand project has been notified. See the above diff provided by Nurg. TarnishedPath^talk 10:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry, I can't help. The script's creator is User:BilledMammal, who appears to have retired. I think someone else should take over as maintainer. Please consider posting at the user script noticeboard. Frost 10:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. Nurg (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the RM nomination at Talk:Laponia (historical province)#Requested move 23 March 2025, but the bot did not react to the change. Could you check how to fix this? Thanks, 84.251.164.143 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:@84.251.164.143, Perhaps try making a request for assistance at WT:RM. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Kia ora - just wanting to query your decision to relist this move request? It's got universal opposition and has already been relisted twice, having been open for more than a month. Seems like closing it at this point would be more than appropriate. Turnagra (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Turnagra, my appologies. I missed that it had been relisted twice. My eyes only picked up that it had been relisted once. I've undone my relist and if I get time after work I'll close it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Turnagra sorry I can’t close that right away. Life has taken over. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

:@BuySomeApples, both [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-17/leaving-hate/104947474 this] and [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-17/neo-nazi-extremist-intervention-radicalisation-four-corners/104930828 this] contain significant coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 04:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure if those two sources meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. It seems like he's mostly only notable as one of several young Australians included in news coverage about radicalization. There isn't anything that points to him being a notable public figure. At the very least he seems to be low profile, see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@BuySomeApples, that's an essay. The general standard is signficant coverage in multiple (i.e., two or more) reliable secondary sources which are independent from the subject. See Jarrad Searby an article I created on another individual in the same category who has barely more coverage than this individual. That article was on WP:DYK. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Tbh, I don't personally think the sources are enough but you're welcome to resubmit it for a second opinion. This isn't a topic I edit much and I won't pretend to be the arbiter of notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@BuySomeApples all good mate. An argument could be made that both the sources above are the same (both ABC Australia) and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to watch a 45+ minute current affairs video. I'll wait until there is some more reporting, which shouldn't take long given the nature of these people. TarnishedPath^talk 06:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

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

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Draft talk:Ultrasonic metal atomization on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.