User talk:FormalDude/Archive/7

---

safiekhan42 37.111.140.193 (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's trying to communicate ––FormalDude ^talk 06:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

nerd -- TNT (talk • she/they) 01:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

at least i'm not a programmer ––FormalDude ^talk 03:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

- XavierItzm (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 18:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 03:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The article

) 17:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Contrats, Dude! What a great choice of article to improve. Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you two! ––FormalDude ^talk 21:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

+1 SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I remembered you giving me a good soda and a peer reviewer on SpaceX Starship, some of which I still referencing whenever I tried to improve the article. Now, it is more comprehensive than before, and I think you are interested to drop some comment on Starship's second peer review. (Ignore the deletion tag, it is likely resolved now and await for closure.) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Thanks for the offer! The article does look great. This is where my editing skills kind of taper off, as I don't have much experience with the fine details it takes to get an article to FA. I'll be happy to take a look though and see if I can provide any feedback. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Any feedback is very appreciated! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

What a beautiful greeting. Thank you very much for the kind words, Justiyaya. Happy holidays! ––FormalDude ^talk 00:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 08:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 14:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For your silly edit on TheresNoTime's user page. wizzito | say hello! 01:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

no u ––FormalDude ^talk 03:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the
  2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed
  from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for
  advanced permissions
  .

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

A tag has been placed on

. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

15:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 09:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Your user signature

Hello FormalDude, please update your user signature via Special:Preferences to remove the inclusion of File:Emojione 1F427.svg. Our signature policy forbids the use of image files in user signatures (c.f. Wikipedia:Signatures#Images). While I don't personally think it is a good idea, you could use this unicode character instead: 🐧. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ––FormalDude ^talk 23:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Regarding your RfC close in Talk:Steele Dossier = "There is no consensus to remove the content. The two sentences will stay in." Even if it's true that a majority in favour of removal is "no consensus",

) 15:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: You're right, that's my mistake. I've changed my closure accordingly. ––FormalDude talk 16:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Invocation of BLP for this specific content is unwarranted and violates balance/NPOV. While Peter himself may not be consciously part of the effort, this still serves to aid a long-standing effort to gradually delete properly-sourced views from one side of the political spectrum, only leaving the views of Trump supporters and their denials of the Trump campaign's involvement in illicit contacts with Russians and downplaying of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

Both are well-documented facts, and many RS have noted how, regardless of the issues with other parts of the dossier, certain parts of the dossier were correct on exactly those two points. Mayer is an award-winning journalist whose views on that subject should not be suppressed, but that's exactly what this does. Deleting those parts amounts to political whitewashing. The RfC was bogus from the start, and regardless of how several of us tried to appease Peter by making many adjustments, he refused to accept these changes, leaving the RfC active, instead of withdrawing it. A violation of several policies is now accepted? That's not right. -- Valjean (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: You make good points, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not BLP content. I don't see how an outcome of no consensus here can result, policy-wise, in keeping the content. ––FormalDude talk 19:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we should look at the two sentences he targeted and analyze them while thinking about a major focus of

, which is to delete "unsourced or poorly sourced" negative content:

That content is not unsourced or poorly sourced, and hardly "negative", unless one sees anything from mainstream RS which undermines Carter Page's deceptive and evasive testimony as a dangerous BLP violation. In that sense, raising BLP objections is a bogus misuse of BLP per

.

It's even more egregious when one considers that Peter refused to accept this much improved "version which combines all improvements and alters and leaves out several things you didn't like in the first two sentences":

That version was mentioned in the RfC. Knowing his views toward the improved version which resolved his objections, there isn't much hope for improving that content, and that's not right. BTW, "no consensus" would favor keeping such long-standing content. A normal discussion would have resulted in an improvement (we're ALWAYS open for improvement!), but now even that improvement is blocked as Peter and his supporters at the RfC will just object again because the main objective hasn't yet been achieved (see my comments on his talk page). -- Valjean (talk)

Okay, it seems that per policy (Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis), the content should be left in since it was altered to address the primary concerns, and is, per the RfC, undoubtedly sourced, even if there is no consensus. I also believe that in cases of no consensus, status quo should apply, and that would have us leave the content in. So for those reasons, and everything Valjean has said, I'm revising the close one final time. ––FormalDude talk 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I would then like to install the improved version, whereupon it can be "judged on a case-by-case basis". The improved content was denied that option. -- Valjean (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: I've updated my closure, please go ahead. ––FormalDude talk 20:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Please keep an eye on the article and talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude: WP:CRYBLP is just an essay which cannot override a policy, WP:BLP still applies unless Valjean clearly states removal was done in bad faith, and when one says status quo one generally means the status quo ante, i.e. the version before Valjean inserted the sentences. And as for the claim about repairing: The RfC was made because Valjean discouraged continuation of prior discussion. When Valjean edited during the RfC I said Valjean, Responding to an RfC says "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring." I view your edit as unhelpful -- it's belated, it's only a fix for part of the problems, it even adds a new problem, citing a site that calls itself a blog. I object and reaffirm my !vote is Remove. Voters after that were perfectly aware of Valjean's act. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Peter, your dislike of Jane Mayer is not a policy-based reason for deleting her very qualified POV on the subject. She's a very respected and award-winning investigative journalist whose in-depth articles are very informative. She does good research.

What part of BLP is really a concern here?

You write "status quo ante, i.e. the version before Valjean inserted the sentences." That's utter nonsense. It means back to the version before YOU tried to delete that VERY long-standing content. It's been there, with various wordings, since at least March 2018, and has undergone several slight tweaks and improvements by many editors. It's not some obscure part of the article that has never been scrutinized.

Blog? Our guideline about use of blogs is old (from when they were only amateur personal diaries) and is directed at personal blogs by non-experts of the diary type. We don't use them. Otherwise, the blog format and easy to use software is used by corporations, politicians, and others, many of which we consider RS here, so don't fixate on the word "blog". Just Security is respected and widely used here and is operated by legal subject matter experts who do good and solid work.

Here's what Jane Mayer wrote:

This comes down to what really happened vs what Steele wrote. Did he write the wrong name (Sechin)? Yes. Does that mean the allegation is totally false? Only on a technicality because of the name. ONLY THAT PART, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Page's secret meetings still happened; he lied about them; then under oath he did all he could to avoid telling what really happened: He DID meet with Sechin's right-hand man; they DID discuss sanctions and the Rosneft sale. So was Steele basically right? Yes indeed, and Newsweek, Mayer, and others have noted that fact. The devil is in the details, and by removing these details, the baby gets thrown out so Page looks like an innocent angel who never lied or kept his many meetings with top Russian officials secret. We even go so far as to include his deceptive denial.

Carter Page is very evasive, and, under oath, he squirms and tries every legal trick to not admit the facts, but he also knows better than to outright lie to Congress. His testimony is painful to read. He wastes page after page of testimony as he dodges providing direct answers to simple questions. Schiff finally gets to this point with all of Page's forced "may"bes: "MR. SCHIFF: I'm not asking if there were definitive, Dr. Page, but you seem to be indicating that you may have had some discussion of sanctions and you may have had some discussion of the sale of a part of Rosneft with the head of investor relations for Rosneft, Mr. Baranov. Is that right?" Ultimately, Page is forced to admit that it did happen, not "may" have happened. So why is he evasive about this? Baranov is Sechin's right-hand man, and he represented Sechin when he spoke to Page. Sechin is like Trump. He let's others do his dirty work, always thinking of plausible deniability. When Page was speaking to Baranov, he was essentially speaking to Sechin, and when Baranov was speaking to Page, "According to Harding, Baranov was "almost certainly" "relaying Sechin's wishes"."

There are editors who don't like what Jane Mayer wrote about this, and they don't like that we document the fact that under oath Page was forced to admit things he had previously denied and blatantly lied about out of court, things that lend credibility to Steele's reporting. It's also possible to get a small group of such editors together and create a local consensus that undermines policies. That's what's happening here. Such a consensus should be ignored and should even be punished with sanctions.

We are supposed to document these things, not hide them, as these editors are trying to do. There is no good policy-based reason, including any bogus BLP concerns, for deleting this content. The content has been improved to meet several of Peter's concerns, bending over backward to make sure no policies are ignored, yet he persists in his efforts to delete this content, even after those improvements. His reasoning for deleting it is now based on ethereal and nebulous personal wishes, not policies. He needs to drop this matter and move on. Continued efforts in this direction are clearly tendentious, and my sincerest efforts to AGF toward him are stretched beyond reasonable measure. AGF is not a suicide pact, and he will be observed much more closely from now on. Just a superficial look at some of his edits are already worrying. -- Valjean (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Thank you both for your time and effort devoted to making sure we follow policy. ––FormalDude talk

03:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude: I hope your decision was not influenced by Valjean's comments about me. I will not take it to

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Peter Gulutzan (talk

) 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 15:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 22:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 21:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 19:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your removal of reliably sourced content from Chinese government response to COVID-19

Hi, In this edit you completely removed the "Refusal to cooperate with second phase of WHO investigation" chapter from Chinese government response to COVID-19, citing "NPOV". The chapter was sourced with CNN, The New York Times, BBC and Science — very strong sources. The Chinese refusal was considered a significant issue as evident from the sources. Can you elaborate on what is the "NPOV" problem on having this information in Wikipedia? Thanks --Sankari (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:DUEWEIGHT. If you feel differently feel free to restore the content or start a discussion at the article talk page. ––FormalDude talk

06:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Acoustic Truth-Help

Dear Formal Dude, Thank you for your help with the draft I submitted. I am a newbie, so I really appreciate it! Barbie1979 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barbie1979: No problem! ––FormalDude ^talk 00:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks! Happy New Year! ––FormalDude ^talk 04:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{

subst:Happy New Year 2016

}} to send this message

Category:Wikipedians on Twitter has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

1. I ripped the book stuff from a county history website that hosted it (w/ page numbers also from the same site) and I need to re-retrieve those. Thing is, the book was hosted across like a million different pages so I can't really have a central link and I have no clue how to accurately cite it in WP. But this search covers a lot of ground, and I'll try to get whatever was attributed to that book.

2. I have 1 picture up on Commons, need to take more soon... I keep promising myself.... wizzito | say hello! 08:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude, thanks for your message about discretionary sanctions on articles related to

) 09:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:FTN at any time. ––FormalDude talk

21:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking to self-revert your recent reversion at

2021 United States Capitol attack

Yes, your edit was a mistake. Please self revert: [2] (ADL), [3] (Daily Caller), and page 15 of [4] (George Washington University). The article cited a demographic analysis by NPR, which is found to be wanting in these three sources. I removed the analysis, and I think these three sources will persuade you that the NPR demographic analysis does not belong in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Daily Caller and the Federalist are not reliable sources. ADL and Geourge Washington University are. If you want to add content from either of those sources please do so, but I don't believe they directly contradict the NPR claim. ––FormalDude talk 22:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources I linked to in the comment were linked to from the Federalist url in the comment history. ADL also discusses another figure which is close, but not quite what NPR found. The issue ADL and the other sources have with the NPR claim is not the percentage of participation, but the standard of comparison. It is actually evidence against an undue military-related participation in what happened. The text I removed stated, "An analysis by National Public Radio showed that nearly 20% of defendants charged in relation to the attack served in the military; in the general population, 7% of all American adults are veterans." It was misleading for them to compare military participation to the general population. The wikitext I removed still should be removed from the article. I left the article as is, for you to self-revert.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: This is reason to remove the comparison then, not the statistic. So are you okay changing it to just "An analysis by National Public Radio showed that nearly 20% of defendants charged in relation to the attack served in the military"? ––FormalDude talk 22:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Between the ADL and the university, which do you prefer? You could keep the NPR source for a truncated statement similar to this suggestion, and also add to it in the same sentence or a second sentence that the military percentage was comparable to an ordinary sampling of adult men.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RSP

and secondary, and also mentions the university source.

It seems NPR and the ADL are making different claims though. NPR refers to those charges, while ADL refers to those participating. So there is a potential for discrepancy, which it seems there is, and theoretically, we should include both. Something like "Nearly 20% of defendants charged in relation to the attack and about 12% of the participants in general were reported to have served in the military." ––FormalDude talk 22:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It is acceptable to report both figures; will you also include a discussion comparing it to the expected percentage from adult men in general?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I've updated the article to include both. Not sure of the best way to include the comparison, maybe you can add that part. ––FormalDude talk 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I went and did that. I will copy and paste this discussion to my talk page for reference.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for your help. ––FormalDude talk 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi sir I was sorry ,I by mistake edited some other page I will never repeat it , so can you please forgive me. Thank You Sir and please reply. 115.96.144.49 (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@115.96.144.49: No worries, but please do be careful and make sure you're following reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 06:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks bro for replying ,I won't do any unconstructive editing that's my promise.Thanks 115.96.144.49 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hey Just now I saw someone else is using my I'd or my account to edit pages can you please help me , otherwise because of his disruptive editing I might get blocked for nothing. 115.96.144.49 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes I can help you:
    CREATEANACCOUNT. ––FormalDude talk
    11:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't want any account it would be better if you block me for a day that might help separate the accounts Thank You. 115.96.144.49 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022)

Hello FormalDude! I'd like to invite you to a Covid-19 focused Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Spanish, Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome. COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC)

--Wil540 art (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude! I'm sorry to keep coming to you for help.. You created a userbox for me in the past (which I loved,) and I wanted to see if you could help with creating a userbox that states I am a fan of the show Psych. Off color, I know, but maybe the UBX can read, "this user is a Psych-o" with a picture of the show's logo beside it. Just an idea, but I'm having trouble trying to create it myself. I would appreciate any help you can give. Thank you again!!! Spf121188 (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: No problem, how's this: User:FormalDude/sandbox2? ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That is EXCELLENT!! Thank you so much!!! Spf121188 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: It's yours then! Moved to: User:Spf121188/userbox/psych ––FormalDude talk 16:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate it! I'll look at the guidance you showed me before t try and get this whole UBX thing down, but I can't thank you enough! Spf121188 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Per this edit, which was the correct one? "Dignities" or "Dignitys"? AFAIK, the plural form of proper noun ended with "y" shouldn't be ended with "ies". 101.128.126.206 (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Dignities is the plural form of dignity. ––FormalDude talk 10:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, even if it was treated as a proper noun. 101.128.126.206 (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well now I'm not sure actually. ––FormalDude talk 10:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll keep the previous status quo until a new discussion happens. I'm not so sure either. 101.128.126.206 (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you're right! I changed it in the article. ––FormalDude talk 11:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at

. In addition, please remember:

• usually
  not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Temporary, 3 months -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 05:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 18:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 10:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

that DS notice.

I am not complaining about the notice. I just want to know how you did it. I recently attempted to give one and failed miserably. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@

Template:Ds/alert using the code {{subst:alert|covid}}. ––FormalDude ^talk

03:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(

WP:AWARE and ensure the user isn't already formally aware. Adoring nanny was technically already 'aware' due to participation in a recent Arb Enforcement request. Unless I'm creating the talk page, I always check the history of the page using the tag filter "discretionary sanctions alert". For reasonably active editors, I'll also check their contribution history with the same tag filter, to see if they've notified anyone else about DS in that topic area. For active editors, especially ones who have been editing for a while in the topic area, I'll look their Wikipedia space contribs and ctrl-f for "arbitration" to see if they are aware that way.

Best of luck to you as you engage in this boring work to buttress a broken system! Firefangledfeathers

03:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't care, searching in four different places isn't exactly easy, and as I said I don't mind. Best of luck to you both, thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As a general matter, how does one find the topiccode? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@

here (please correct me if I'm wrong here) Justiyaya

16:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 09:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 01:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Parish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there FormalDude. Hope you are doing well. I'm reaching out simply to ask if you'd be interested in reviewing the article Nicole Kidman for GA status. I noticed you recently reviewed and promoted the article Timothée Chalamet to GA status (an article I watch and occasionally edit), which is why I was hoping you would be interested in reviewing this article I've been working on for a while. I nominated it a while back and at one point, a user did begin reviewing it, but for some reason they withdrew. I understand if you're not interested or are too busy at the moment, but if you are willing, I'd appreciate the review. Don't feel obliged to respond, but if you have any thoughts regarding the article, please do let me know. Thank you for your attention and have a great day. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, and I've been meaning to review at least one more, so this is perfect. Thanks for reaching out, I'll get started on the review soon. ––FormalDude talk

02:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

One promotion edit, but also

In response to your ping over here, see this. This account specifically was also a bad username, they were copy pasting promotional content from a website with the same name as the account. Usually accounts that also have a promotional name and also make promotional edits get spam blocked without any questions. 11:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You reverted my edit here: [5] The sentence I put back, Biden completed the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; during this, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control, causing Biden to face criticism over the manner of withdrawal, with allegations of poor planning., was longstanding text that had been there for months. The sentence you reverted to was one Neutrality made up yesterday. You need to restore my edit because it reflected longstanding text. If neutrality wants to change longstanding text, they can go to the talk page.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: You did not address any of the issues mentioned by Neutrality in their edit summary. As they said, this text needs consensus for inclusion. The fact that it has existed without objection does not constitute consensus. ––FormalDude talk 04:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats not how the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works. If I went and made a change on Joe Biden and someone reverted, no one has the right to restore it without being discussed first. Neutrality made a brand new content inclusion and I reverted. At that point it goes to talk page, not restored by you, and now I'm expected to challenge it. There is also no consensus for Neutrality's edit, the custom is to go back to longstanding text. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Neutrality's edit was not a bold one. They simply removed problematic content on policy-based justification. You cannot just restore that content without explanation. ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Any edit that changes the text is bold. If content on a highly watched page such as this one is left unscathed for months it's

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. What Neutrality did was make change, I reverted to the status quo, and now we are supposed to go to talk, but no hers is restored and the status quo is abandanded. Lets say Neutrality removed the entire second paragraph of the lead, would this same principle apply for her revision to be kept until everyone else had a consensus that the entire second paragraph was needed? Or would we just go back to keeping the second paragraph until Neutrality could garner a consensus to remove it? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk

) 04:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not be restoring your edit as you did not address the problems with the content that Neutrality mentioned in their edit summary of the removal. ––FormalDude talk 04:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

How about it removes content that is cited in the body, has been extensively covered in RS, and it's been there for 5 months. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. You shut down an RFC and proposed to remove another one that just opened. The reason I opened them as RFC is because both Talk pages are basically ghostowns. If I post a normal discussion

) 19:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:3O. ––FormalDude talk

22:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, just posted on the talk page as a normal discussion. If that's the case (almost no response), I'll do as recommended. Thanks!

Cornerstonepicker (talk

) 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating Foodshed.io Wikipedia Article

Hello@

look at the draft and offer feedback

. I do have a COI with the topic, I will not directly create the article but would appreciate any help from more neutral parties. Thank you in advance!

Ecazart (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ecazart, and thank you for reaching out. I greatly appreciate you declaring your COI in-line with Wikipedia's policy, and I'd be happy to take a look at the article for you. ––FormalDude talk 21:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @FormalDude:! I appreciate you taking the time to look at it, please let me know if you think the page needs any other sources or if you have any questions I can help with.

Ecazart (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NCORP

, meaning it is considered notable for Wikipedia because it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

In my capacity as an

mainspace for you if you'd like. ––FormalDude talk

22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good call on the sources, I have two other ones that may be more appropriate. One is from the program website, the other one is from Biz Journals. If neither of these are appropriate, we should remove that sentence.

It would be great if you could bring this to the mainspace for Wikipedia, I appreciate your help on this new page!

Ecazart (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@

The Business Journals is a reliable source. I'll fix that now and publish the article! ––FormalDude talk

22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Great, thank you!! Please let me know if there are any future pages we can collaborate on. Have a great rest of your day! Ecazart (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at

) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of

Template:Self-harm

) 05:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Adopt

Would you adopt me? I would like if you adopt me. What are the criteria that I need to meet before you can adopt me? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: I don't have any criteria at this time other than a willingness to commit. If you plan on being an active Wikipedia editor who contributes on a weekly basis at least (which it looks like you are) then I'm happy to adopt you.

How would you like your adoption to be structured? We can have it be more like a program where I give you assignments and offer feedback, or I can simply set up a place for you to ask me questions so I can provide guidance to you as you need it. ––FormalDude talk 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but a few more questions before I say yes.

1. How many does will this 'course' continue?

2. I am actually a little busy in real life, so I may not edit everyday. So is that OK? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:

1. There's not a set length, and it depends how quickly you work and gain experience, but I anticipate we would be working together for at least two months.
2. It is perfectly fine if you don't edit everyday, however, you should aim to edit at least on a weekly basis.

Let me know if that works for you or if you have any other questions! ––FormalDude talk 03:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And one final question. Can I take wiki breaks in between? Is that allowed? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Yes, Wikibreaks are allowed. I'd just ask that you let me know when you're going to be taking a break that is longer than one week. ––FormalDude talk 03:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Would you check your email once please. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Responded. ––FormalDude talk 03:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok so on those terms, I accept to become your student. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Glad to have you! ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude thanks a lot. I am also excited to have you as my teacher. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but can you adopt me twice. For example for this time I select option 2. After completing the adoption, I again want to be adopted but this time as per option 1. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: I've created your adoption school at User:FormalDude/Mentorship/Itcouldbepossible. ––FormalDude talk 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting me as your student. In my previous reply, I have already said my opinion. So I want to select option no 2. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• discretionary sanctions
  that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work on antivandalism. Thanks for keeping the wiki clean. Rlink2 (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And also, I added a new song, if you don't mind..... Rlink2 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Thank you very much! Appreciate the music. ––FormalDude talk 21:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)