Archives

1. Oct. 2006 − April 2008 2. May − Nov. 2008 3. Dec. 2008 − March 2009 4. April − May 2009 5. June 2009 6. July − Nov. 2009 7. Dec. 2009 − March 2010 8. April − Aug. 2010 9. Sept. 2010 − Feb. 2011 10. March − Nov. 2011 11. Dec. 2011 − July 2012 12. Aug. 2012 − Feb. 2013 13. March − Oct. 2013 14. Nov. 2013 − July 2014 15. Aug. 2014 − March 2015 16. April − Oct. 2015 17. Nov. 2015 − April 2016 18. May − Aug. 2016 19. Sept. − Nov. 2016 20. Dec. 2016 − Feb. 2017 21. March – May 2017 22. June – Aug. 2017 23. Sept. – Nov. 2017 24. Dec. 2017 – March 2018 25. April – Aug. 2018 26. Sept. 2018 – Dec. 2019 27. Jan. – Dec. 2020 28. Jan. – Dec. 2021 29. Jan. – Dec. 2022 30. Jan.– Sept. 2023 31. Aug. 2023– June 2024 32. July 2024 – Dec. 2024

}

It appears that Feeglgeefhas given you the green light to send this to move review [1] and curiously blanked his talk page just 5 minutes after posting this. Several concerns going on with this NAC editor, and I'm going to look over several of closed RM's shortly. TiggerJay (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and plan on doing that later tonight. I saw the edit, but didn't want to do it right away in case they changed their mind. To be fair, he appears to simply not archive anything, so I'm not sure if the blanking itself is curious, though there were several RM concerns. Please let me know if you do start a discussion about this later. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about bringing something up over at move review talk but figured I'd approach him on his talk page. In reality they have only ever "effectively" performed 3 moves closes , since the first one was a rather large multi-page move. It is interesting, to say they very least. All three seem to be the wrong ones to get started on with RMC/NAC -- usually people start off on the shallow end with SNOW type closures, not one where there has been significant discussion and with logical opposition. Also his replies to those who have challenged his closures boarder on uncivil behavior. TiggerJay (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Anyway, I've created the move review (Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_December#Murder_of_Zvi_Kogan) if that affects how you intend to proceed. I already posted on their talk page, but I only saw his comments as curt. Not courteous perhaps, but not purposefully rude either. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't end up using the original hook that was based off my content, so not sure I actually deserve this. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I could use some assistance with this Talk:Taylor Lorenz#Rolling Stone Removal. A user is making non-consensus changes/reversions despite my request for them to discuss before making changes.

I am relatively new to editing, so if there is a better way to get support with this issue, I would greatly appreciate you pointing me in that direction.

Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS is a decision at the reliable sources noticeboard that because of past errors, its use on politically sensitive issues shouldn't be used. You can read the relevant sections from our own article on the publication's factchecking issues at Rolling_Stone#Defamatory_false_rape_story_and_lawsuit or the Columbia Journalism Review article [2] on one of the failures. The removal is probably correct here, though the content is probably correct and not extraordinary.

In this case, I don't think it's super important. The only reason you would attack the a piece about you is to discredit it and the author, so there's no real need to include this explicitly. If you want to keep it, you should find a non-Rolling Stone RS that includes that phrasing, but I wouldn't spend time fighting over this in particular. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sure this particular instance is probably not worth fighting. But more broadly there are a group of editors who are, in my assessment, not at all interested in NPOV with this particular article as she is a lightning rod.

Anything remotely - possibly - neutral or positive about Lorenz, and they want it gone.

I am unsure how to proceed and feel they are chipping away at the article by deletion. I, for one, am close to giving up and just letting the article suffer from their deletions. Delectopierre (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also meant to say:

"The only reason you would attack the a piece about you is to discredit it and the author, so there's no real need to include this explicitly".

I agree! Which is another reason it seems, to me, that there is a problem with NPOV happening with a few editors trying to remove sentences like this one using technicalities/bludgeoning. Delectopierre (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realized I left you hanging and I hope the holidays are treating you well. Contentious topics like American politics will always attract people who will push hard for their particular viewpoint. Most do so in good faith, but coming from their perspective, and help provide a critical eye on sourcing and balance issues. Some are obvious trolls and won't last long and others strike a balance between the two. I've found what helps is to spend your energy remaining focused on when they are wrong by finding good RSs and relevant policies and guidelines and conceding when they truly have the right of it. Opposing for opposing's sake will quickly lead to burnout.

In respect to wanting to expand the article, one obvious area of expansion for the Lorenz article is the reception to the book, which has been mostly positive, though I remember a few that wished it had a different focus. Critical reactions to published work is a regular feature of most author's biographies and is usually never controversial as long as it's not overly long. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Likewise, I hope you're having a good holiday season.

That's very good advice - I appreciate it. I've saved it to my desktop for a good reminder.

Lastly, that's a good idea to add about her book. I added it to my list of potential improvements to make. Right now I'm working on drafting a brand new article, but once I'm done will start to gather sources about Lorenz's book reception.

Thanks again for your help, I very much appreciate it.

Happy new year! Delectopierre (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patar knight. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should be very leery about categorizing people for being charged with a crime. This has the feel of a smear on them as guilty. Wikipedia is proactively saying this defines the person. Even if we simply have the category named charged it still amounts to functionally smearing them. I do not think we should be smearing people who have not been convicted in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently edited a bunch of pages in various namespaces about people charged with crimes, so can I ask if this was in response to any one edit in particular before I respond further? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address something you did right here on Superman (2025 film). You attempted to remove content on the article on the basis of WP:BLPSPS. The information was about the casting folks looking Black actor to play one character, and an Asian or Latina actress to play another. #1. How in the frosted flakes does bringing up a matter of race / ethnicity (in the context of casting an [unspecified, too] actor / actress of a certain race) have anything to do with BLP? #2. WP:MCU (which has by WP:IMPLICIT de facto fostered over to cover the DCU articles) has consensus at WP:MCURS that Sneider is an expert self-published source so his stuff is good to go.

I saw the administrators' tag on your user groups and wondered for a minute, but I found it fit to discuss with you that the concept of a prospective, unidentified person or groups of people being a person or people of color is not concerning a biography of living persons, and that thusly treating that information as contentious is, eh, and I know that WP:AGF tells me to think the best of everyone, but this edit of yours really gives the appearance of impropriety that you've contested content in a possibly racially insensitive manner? You are clearly not acting in such a manner, but I ask you to just take a moment to reflect on the thinking that got you to that point, because it is baffling to me and should be something to note for you for future reference? IDK. I'm just confused as to why you did the edit.

Long story short: the subject of a person of color being looked for to be cast in a movie does not concern WP:BLP, and do review WP:MCU's local consensus around sourcing if you are to continue to contribute to the topic. I'd also like to wish you a happy holidays, and to thank you for your help as an admin. BarntToust 03:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in that aforementioned edit, you sort of misleadingly replaced the content in question with other content, not just outright removing the content that you thought was not okay. Please mind that you be careful about doing that. please mind the first words of WP:SUMMARYNO: Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important. BarntToust 04:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get to this last night because it was late, but I do want to explain. The stuff sourced to the BLPSPS-violating source without independent corroboration (i.e. "Blitz") was removed. Given that the casting section above and the paragraph below both have confirmations of the Gathegi/Mr. Terrific casting, I didn't really see a functional difference to change the routine and expected news that they're looking to cast a black actor as a famous black superhero (cited to the BLPSPS-violating source) to the strong corroborating evidence of that cited in the other (BLPSPS-compliant) source in the same sentence. In any case, it's a short edit. Maybe not technically perfect, but not misleading. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunn has said that things in the script have changed throughout the development. por ejemplo, Gunn said a character was cut from the film who prospectively was going to be played by Bassem Youssef by the SAG-AFTRA strikes, and recently said he changed the ending of Superman significantly after consulting his wife.

"Blitz" was considered for Asian or Latinx performers. It was probably a code name for Hawk guy or Hawkgirl. A Latina, Isabela Merced was chosen to be Hawkgirl. It could have been an unrelated role, sure, or anything. But it's technical info that insights into the casting process. Not a BLP vio to say a filmmaker was looking for a specific demographic for a role. BarntToust 17:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP issue here isn't because of the potentially infinite actors being looked at, but the people (person?) doing the casting. Since James Gunn is the film's director and producer, the studio exec in charge of creative decisions, and someone who apparently only answers to David Zaslav in the WB hierarchy,[3] anything that references a casting decision for the film is the same as referencing something that Gunn or John Papsidera acting on behalf of Gunn did.[4] As a group of two where one is the other's boss, it seems like the clearest possible example of a scenario envisioned in WP:BLPGROUP where a small group is functionally indistinguishable from an individual, so BLP applies to the material.

Since BLP applies, a self-published source such as The InSneider can't be used per WP:BLPSPS. A local consensus at a WikiProject task force can't override a clear rule at BLP. If the material is cited to non-SPSs, that's fine and The InSneider can simply be replaced. For example, in the edit in question, the nearby THR source basically confirms that Mr. Terrific, a black character, would be cast with Gunn teasing him over and over, but I wasn't able to find a replacement for the Blitz bit, so I removed it.

As for whether The InSneider is reliable enough for non-BLP stuff (my take is that he's mostly correct, but his content often falls into WP:RUMOR territory, and he gets too many stories wrong to be used as a RS on Wikipedia), that's being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [5] if you want to join in.

I'm a casual watcher of these superhero films and don't follow the scoop culture that Sneider seems embedded in. I only got involved with these edits because of the RSN describing obvious BLP violations, so I probably won't be seriously contributing to this area in the future. Happy holidays to you as well. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, because clearly James Gunn looking for non-white people to be in his films is this big, shocking, provocative and bold thing to be writing on Wikipedia about him. That's not any violation of BLP by any stretch. If we were discussing the man's twitter history (which if you weren't aware it was so horrible that Disney fired him for 2 years as a result of his old tweets coming up) we should NOT use Jeff Sneider or any self published source.

I just don't get it. Casting processes are done by people. So what? Since breathing is done by people, does every sentence in that article HAVE to hold to scrutiny by BLP? Thanks for pointing me to Sneider discussion on RS. BarntToust 12:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we disagree as to what extent and the contexts that the BLP policy should be applied, I'm thankful we could discuss about this here. Happy holidays, may you enjoy good times with friends and family! BarntToust 13:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make it 100% clear, I think it's a good thing that superhero films are casting more non-white superheroes, so I would ask you to strike the comments that imply I'm some sort of crypto-racist. WP:BLPSPS is not about if the underlying material is harmful or not and says: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

Since InSneider is self-published source and the very small group of people making casting decisions for the Superman film are still alive, BLPSPS bars its use. If the statement being sourced to InSneider was "James Gunn is a film director" it would still be barred by BLPSPS, though obviously in that case non-SPSs would exist and be used.

It's not the mere fact that people do them that implicates BLP, but the very small size of the people doing so. WP:BLPGROUP says: when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.

To use your breathing example, the entire human population that breathes is far too large of a group for any general statement about it to be identifiable to anyone in particular, so BLP would not be implicated. However, if there's a sentence in the article that says "The University of X Sleep Research Laboratory discovered Y" and the lab only has two or three researchers, than BLP would apply (though in that case, WP:MEDRS would apply as well, which would also disallow self-published sources). As I said in my RSN posts, I think even things like filming schedules and episode count decisions probably don't invoke BLP since the group of factors/decision makers is too big. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we're not talking about the people themselves, we are talking about a casting process that really just so happens to be ran by people. talking about names being listed on a cast sheet is not by any means related to describing a living person.

We are talking about a casting process. Not the life and times of a subject of a biography. You are clearly not a Krypto racist, and I enjoy knowing there are admins here who enjoy progressive ideals. However, we cannot be looking at the words "Asian", "Latina" and "Black" and misappropriate policy about living people. I hardly see why or how noting a demographical casting preference concerns writing a biography. When I get back on my PC, I may well strike what you've requested.

I think a lot of Sneider's bold-as-all-hell outta-the-blue claims should warrant explicit attribution or a consideration of dueness to question the value of inclusion. But mundane technical info? Sure, he is very well connected in the industry and he would know about the technical parts. BarntToust 17:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Sneider said that Gunn was pissed about the Cleveland media leaking half his movie during principal photography and was threatening to sue Cleveland.com et. al over the ordeal, that would be within the threshold of BLPSPS to exclude. Definitely not the casting demographics, that's not a risqué enough statement. I'm concerned that you see the casting demographics of people of color and assume it is on the level of the above hypothetical example. BarntToust 18:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the subject of such a claim would primarily be a person (not a demographic on a casting sheet) and the claim that the chairman of a major American production studio levying a lawsuit over a prominent local media company would be bold as all hell would let out (unlike a routine assertion that there was a certain demographic in mind for a character on a casting sheet). BarntToust 18:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of WP:BLP makes it clear that it isn't limited to biographical articles: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. (emphasis original). As I've discussed above, WP:BLPGROUP makes it clear that it can apply to small groups of people even if no one is explicitly named and WP:BLPSPS bars the use of any self-published source for any material, not just negative/controversial stuff, when BLP is implicated. If this was sourced to say a non-self published, reliable publication like Variety, Deadline, THR, etc. than BLPSPS would not apply.

I have never asserted that casting people of color is "risqué" or at the same level of controversy as someone threatening a lawsuit against an established newspaper. You are putting words in my mouth. Once again, I'm going to ask you to strike your comments accusing me of racism. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

y'know what? I have no idea what exactly anybody is contesting this about anymore. Took a nice drink of Christmas cheer for me to realise that this has been a battle of parameters and applicability. Struck the first offending comment insinuating racial... something on your behalf.

I notice the implicit and the whatever IDK I had too much to eat at Christmas dinner so I'll make this wrap-up quick. I just don't get the game. I made the article

Jeff Sneider

which you may enjoy checking out. I realised this InSneider guy is actually the one who is racially insensitive, judging by a 2016 tweet and news story of his, and that he made a joke about driving his car into a tree when he didn't get to publish a story on time? IDK why I ever tried to play devil's advocate for this jackass provocateur. Sorry for wringing you around the bend on your talk page about this. BarntToust 00:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article is well-researched and is definitely quite revealing. Definitely did not know about all of these controversies before. Since I think we've come to an understanding here, I think any further details can be discussed at the RSN thread. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool, MEDRS would require a peer review process, a reputable scientific journal / publisher to publish the info. BarntToust 17:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago you deleted this after an RFD to that effect, one where I too voted delete. In the intervening years, I’ve seen more books and like sources mentioning the term, usually in the context of a variation on Pandeism. Think now it should be restored and pointed there. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's RS using the term since, I have no objection, though you should be careful that any books aren't just self-published ones, since those are included in Google Books. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is Ross Thompson, Ten Ways to Weave the World: Matter, Mind, and God, Volume 2: Embodying Mind (Cascade Books, 2023), 30. Not looking to just create a new redirect, but to restore the history of the old one, so that it is there to see. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the publisher, it seems credible enough to support some content about this in the pandeism article. Let me know you've added such content (I think probably to the definition section?) and I'll restore this and retarget it there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done so, thank you. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Happy holidays! -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for continuing to update and add short descriptions to Wikipedia articles. With your help, we have cleared the WikiProject's top 3000 list for the second month in a row! Your work has made Wikipedia better. Keep it up, and happy holidays! LR.127 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well. Happy holidays! -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franco-Prussian War Op-ed: Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was hoping you could elaborate on this comment. It seems I misjudged the reliability of the source and I'd like to better understand why. I understand the first part that WP:SPECTATOR deals with opinion pieces and I should have taken that into account. However, the second part is less clear to me. I try to avoid citing sources when I see the "contributing writer" title, but in this case the author had no title and was not listed on the masthead. My assumption was that I know even less about the author and that if they aren't on the staff that the article probably didn't receive the same level of editorial review. In your comment, you mention both "non-editorial staff and freelancers wouldn't appear" on the masthead. I thought it was standard practice for newspapers to list their staff writers, and this particular masthead does have someone listed with that title. Was it wrong to assume this author was not a staff writer? I think my main question is whether freelancer writers really receive greater editorial review than a contributing writer. Perhaps I misunderstand the role of a contributing writer. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[I]f they aren't on the staff that the article probably didn't receive the same level of editorial review

I actually think the opposite is more likely to be true, at least for reliable sources.

For non-opinion pieces and assuming no inappropriate owner interference, contributing writers would still fall under the same editorial control as everyone else, it's just that they are typically freelancers/contractors as opposed to full-time exclusive, staff writers, though the terminology may vary from outlet to outlet.

I would argue that freelancer contributors are scrutinized thoroughly because publications jealously protect their reputation and freelancers are more unknown to editors. Errors by freelanders will usually result in rejection and a ban/warning against further work with them. On the other hand, errors by staff are probably more likely to slip by editors especially if they have a proven track record of being "safe". They're also more likely to result in internal discipline as opposed to outright termination except in the worst cases.

I thought it was standard practice for newspapers to list their staff writers, and this particular masthead does have someone listed with that title

I don't think it's standard practice at all for mastheads (e.g. The New York Times employes a lot of journalists and their masthead is just senior editorial staff [6]) though some outlets will keep a directory of their staff. The Spectator is also different in that it's a magazine and is heavily focused on opinion pieces, which necessarily means it would use more freelanders and have less staff writers than other outlets, so perhaps it is feasible for them.

I think you're correct in saying that they're not a staff writer, their bio page on Spectator [7] indicates that they're the editor-in-chief of Mediaite, but my point was that not being on a masthead isn't indicative of non-reliability since often staff writers and freelancers are left out. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

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!

---

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Do you mind locking that page so anons couldn't edit for some time this is third anon that made false edit on number of pardon by Biden DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a content dispute (including batch pardons or not) that is currently being discussed on the talk page and isn't persistent enough to merit protection. It should be sourced and then maybe leave a hidden comment not to change it without consensus? If it picks up though, let me know. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight few anons and account who just make their account made vandalism on the page, i think tempeh lockdown of the page is warranted now DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected it for a few days given the recent activity. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mb for pestering you DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter

Like to thank you for closing Abul khair Group deletion discussion.

Looking forward to learn and connect for future.

Regards

Wh8t0n3arth (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20#South Korea women's national kho kho team. Jay 💬 09:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patar, can you undo the two RfD closes as they were closed about 5 minutes after my comments, and that did not give enough time for participants to react. Jay 💬 08:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I've reopened and relisted both. Let me know if I missed anything. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These were listed in the same request, so should also be deleted.

• T:DYK/NN
• T:DYK/N
• T:DYK/N/C

RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those three were not properly tagged/bundled into the RFD, so I will manually tag them, reopen, and relist. Given that there was a keep !voters in the RFD, a previous RFD with some of these redirects resulted in a no-consensus => keep close , and some people at the DYK thread indicated they were not categorically opposed to keeping or that similar (though shorter) redirects were being used, I'm not going to IAR in this case. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

---

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patar,

I've noticed recently you have started helping out closing AFDs and that is great. However, there is a practice that I think you might be unaware of. If an AFD has only the deletion nomination and one editor arguing for Delete, those AFDs are typically closed as "Soft Deletions", which are treated like Proposed deletions. To be eligible for a Soft deletion, there can be no Keep arguments and the article can't have been PROD'd before or brought to AFD in the past so you need to briefly look at the article's page history. A Soft deletion means that if an editor believes they can improve the article, they can go to WP:REFUND and ask for the article to be restored and it is! Soft deletions are nice because over the past 2 years, we have had a decline in the number of editors participating in AFD discussions and it doesn't seem right, to many of us, that an article should be deleted, forever, based on just a nomination and one editor arguing to Delete.

Most editors closing AFDs use XFDcloser to handle closures and if you select "Delete", you'll see a box below it saying "Soft" which you can check off which will indicate a Soft deletion closure. Thank you again for helping out in AFDLand, it's nice to have a large group of admins who participate there and "rotate" in to share the load. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be sure to follow the updated soft deletion criteria in the future. It's been a few years since I've been very active in AFD closes (largely thanks to yourself) and I'm more active at RFD, where this doesn't apply. I think I've been operating on the original criteria for soft deletion [8] which required no other comments, which is no longer the case.

I don't think it's worth it to go back and reclose, but for anyone looking for a REFUND for an article in which it applies, I'd be happy to do so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

Dear Patar what ever happened to that horror icon article a few years ago? DervilaMoneri (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted after a community discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horror icon (2nd nomination), with almost universal support. The main concerns were that the article was full of original research and synthesis of sources (i.e. rather than using sources that focused on what "horror icon" meant, it was a collection of anytime any source had referred to anything as a "horror icon"). If you do want to bring it back (I see you've started Draft:Horror icon), I would recommend trying to use academic journal articles/books that are about "horror icons" as opposed to just horror. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

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.

---

Please keep in mind that per WP:SDNONE, articles with a self-explanatory title do not need a short description. I noticed that you had added unnecessary short descriptions to 2001 Liechtenstein general election, among others. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest, a significant proportion of readers would not be able to correctly identify if Liechtenstein was a sovereign country or say a state of Germany, so SDNONE shouldn't apply. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. The title is self-explanatory thus does not need a short description. TheBritinator (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What SDNONE says is: some article titles are sufficiently self-explanatory to English language speakers worldwide that a descriptive annotation would not be helpful. If a significant proportion of English language speakers would not be able to identify that Liechtenstein is a country, then indicating that in the short description would be useful so they can see that this is about a national election as opposed to some other level. Furthermore, since the elections are general elections as opposed to say a federal election, presidential election, state election, etc. there is additional potential for confusion for many users. While I suspect most Wikipedia editors would have no issue with identifying Liechtenstein as a country, that's not true of English language speakers generally. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture Timeline: This month in military history

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for updating and adding short descriptions to articles on Wikipedia. With your help, the WikiProject's top 3000 list has been cleared for March 2025 already! Your work has made Wikipedia better :-). LR.127 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too! -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Televsion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24 § Televsion until a consensus is reached. Xoontor (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Televsion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Xoontor (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]