User talk:FormalDude/Archive/ 10

---

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

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

Hi, would you mind relisting the Hamidi AfD? I think "no consensus" closes ought to be reserved for admins since they are by their definition contentious. FWIW, the article still fails the required sourcing for sports articles,

#5, and at least one of the keep !votes had no basis in any policy or guideline so should've been discounted out of hand. The other two keeps were a "per above" !vote and a claim that sources show he played for Afghanistan (but the provided sources were deprecated sites or passing mentions). That leaves us with 3 deletes, 2 somewhat-valid keeps, and a draftify, and therefore warrants closer weighing of the arguments than is expected of non-admins.

Regards, JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi JoelleJay, you bring up some good points. I've relisted the AfD for you. ––FormalDude talk 04:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I had a question I hope has a fairly simple answer: when I edited the URL of the William Byrd Singers website in a reference on the Stephen Wilkinson page, I expected the 'Retrieved <date>' property to be automatically updated, as when I attempted to change it manually the preview showed me that that was not the right way to do it.

So, 1. does that property get updated automatically (presumably as a timed batch operation), or

2. Is there something I need to trigger for it to be updated?

Many thanks for any response!

Rob Kerr | Thurulingas --Thurulingas (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Thurulingas! The URL access date is an optional parameter and does not get updated automatically unless you use the citoid feature of the visual editor. You can update it manually by changing the access-date value in the source code of the citation. ––FormalDude talk 10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's marvellous. I've made that change.

As something of a follow-up, I noted a 'failed verification' on another reference for lack of a quote establishing Stephen's tenure as MD of the William Byrd Singers as 'nearly forty years.' What's the protocol for switching out that citation with one that does show his tenure as stretching from 1970 to 2009. Both the Byrds Website page on Stephen (https://www.williambyrdsingers.org.uk/Stephen-Wilkinson/) and Mark Flinn's book 'Sing Joyfully: The William Byrd Singers at Fifty (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sing-Joyfully-William-Singers-Fifty-ebook/dp/B08KTHQLSZ) show the dates. I don't think either has the exact quote 'nearly forty years' however. How should this be handled?

Apologies if these are fairly basic editing questions. I'm working through the 'Editing Wikipedia for Dummies' basic tutorials now! :D

Cheers,

Thurulingas Thurulingas (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@

verify what it's being used to claim. In fact, in most cases the text should not be an exact quote in order to avoid copyright violations. ––FormalDude talk

10:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, FormalDude, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you are an experienced editor with an interest in girls' football and the disappearance of women. It's good to see you now intend to help us along with better coverage of women. Before you next create a woman's biography, you might like to look through our Primer which provides useful background. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ipigott! Looking forward to working with this project more. ––FormalDude talk 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I was reading about Eric Smidt "co-founder" of Harbor Freight Tools and noticed another anonymous Talk contributor pointed out the Wiki entry on Smidt read like a company press release. There is credible evidence from a USA Today network publisher that Smidt has a few skeletons in his closet that should be on his wiki. His father sued him for looting the company. Also the company claim that he began HF with his father Allan in 1977 contradicts the USA Today source which states Allan Smidt started the company in 1968 when Eric was only 8 years old, not 1977 when Eric was 16 and began working with his father. The wiki is apparently fundamentally wrong. What gives? --Edmund Bentivengo (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@

blanked-and-redirected to the article about the company. ––FormalDude talk

07:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

How to edit a poem --Samkelo Matomemala (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Samkelo Matomemala: You want to edit an existing poem on Wikipedia? Which one? ––FormalDude talk 07:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 10:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 23:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GTA Online The Contract - Dr. Dre album cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GTA Online The Contract - Dr. Dre album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 11:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of Korean restaurants

Just wanted to make sure you saw my ping at Talk:List of Korean restaurants. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Replied at Talk:List of Korean restaurants#Recent Additions. ––FormalDude talk 14:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 23:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Josh Guberman

Hello FormalDude,

I have noticed that you rejected draft I have been working on very hard. May I know the reason? Let me know how I can fix it.

Thank you!

~~~~ Losojosazules (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Josh Guberman Losojosazules (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

notability standard. ––FormalDude talk

20:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Formal Dude

I am completely confused by your message.

Mr. Guberman has had myriad articles and media coverage for over two decades.

What about these periodicals, newspapers and magazines:

The premier real estate magazine in the United States named “The Real deal” which Mr. Guberman has appeared on the cover and also quotes or covered in over half a dozen issues.

What about multiple articles in the most trusted name in journalism “the New York Times”

What about the most read and most significant luxury lifestyle magazines such as:

Hamtpons

Haute Living

Gotham

What about New York’s most widely distributed newspaper NY Post??

What about the myriad other top level periodicals he has appeared in or been quoted in:

New York magazine

Wall Street Journal

Wine spectator

We are trying to understand what is wrong with these media outlets for Wikipedia use?

I have seen hundreds of wiki articles about people who barely have two or three reputable sources yet I have provided dozens and despite that you are rejecting the page?

Please advise what I am missing.

Many thanks Losojosazules (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Losojosazules: All that coverage pertains trivially to the subject, usually with only a one-sentence mention. There are not any RS that are primarily about Guberman. ––FormalDude talk 21:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. How about the article: The Real Deal "Guberman’s gamble" that is fully about Mr Guberman and his career. Same goes to: Haute Living Hard Core: Josh Guberman of Core Development Group, Mann Publication "The Guberman Group", The New York Times "Unearthing Hidden Space", New York Post "The latest status symbol for Hamptons elite is adopting a highway" or even interview for TV Living Large CBS New York and many more... I am really confused here.

Please advise.

Thank you for your time and all the help. I really appreciate it. Losojosazules (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The New York Post is not reliable (

significant. ––FormalDude talk

07:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey how come my info on wikepedia gets deleted. --Varo532 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Varo532, did you see the message on your talk page from Diannaa? Your contributions were plagiarism. ––FormalDude talk 07:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Varo532 on Tiny Rascal Gang (09:33, 20 August 2022)

How can I put the other half of the info where it says article under Allie’s and rivals to expand the paragraph to make it more readable. --Varo532 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Varo532: What do you mean? What's the "other half"? ––FormalDude talk 10:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Varo532 on User talk:FormalDude (15:35, 20 August 2022)

After it says the largest Asian street gang in the United states --Varo532 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your revert of various recent edits of the Jonathan King article was in error, and your subsequent 'warning' was inappropriate.

Despite your claim, no content had been removed. Rather, content had been moved to more appropriate sections. Also, contrary to your claim the moving of the content was noted in the edit summaries. Also, your revert added MoS & punctuation errors, and rather hypercritically removed a small amount of content.

Your hypercorrection has been reverted. Please do not revert this change. Please take greater care in the future with both edits and posting inappropriate comments. 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:BC00:9404:314E:8CAC (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. ––FormalDude talk 19:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that you closed an RfC on the reliability of Business Insider's news reporting. You stated that Most concerns were with their clickbait content that is not associated with their news section. Would you please expand a bit regarding how you came to conclude that? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I think a lot of the arguments in this discussion did not acknowledge the precise scope of the question, which asked editors to evaluate the news section rather than Business Insider in general. Some of the complaints were about past mistakes, but those were refuted by the clear recent improvement of their coverage over the last few years. Ultimately there was a strong argument supporting their news coverage being reliable, and no good rebuttal to that. ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There were several rational arguments made that the Pulitzer win for "Illustrated reporting" was not sufficient to ignore the issues that the source has had and the reputation that it maintained, including evidence from RS that the journalism of BI is in a significantly lower league than that of, say, Politico. With respect, I believe that totally discounting the evidence that individuals such as myself,

WP:SUPERVOTE—something that is especially concerning as you have previously !voted in favor of the general reliability of Business Insider's culture section in a prior RfC. I would kindly ask that you self-revert your involved close. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

04:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Complaints about their content outside of their news section must be discounted given the scope of the RfC. And I hardly think a comment from nearly a year ago makes me involved. I will not be reverting my closure based on these concerns. ––FormalDude talk 05:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, Red-tailed hawk's arguments aren't complaints about their content outside of their news section (?) Also, IMO my argument isn't the best, but IMHO Red-tailed hawk's one is good, and probably stronger than some of the Option 1 votes (I think one of them use The Factual, a flawed ref, at least according to my POV, because it rates Washington Examiner better than The Economist or The New York Times), and IMO some additional considerations could be touched on in the closure summary. Many thanks still for this quick closure and replies! VickKiang (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk's comments complaints were not about BI's content outside of their news section, but much of JBchrch's and Chetsford's were. ––FormalDude talk 05:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Only commenting once because I was pinged: when someone pointed out that the discussion was about the news section, I said that there was no news section to speak of, which is relevant to a discussion about the reliability of a news section. Chetsford's points were about BI as a whole, which is relevant its news section as a part thereof. JBchrch talk 05:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

In light of your decision to not withdraw an involved close, and the substantial issues with your close itself, I have opened a close challenge. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You have given me 2 warnings. One of them is for violating neutral point of view. The other is that I am supposedly here not for creating encyclopedia. I wonder what exact actions from my side resulted in this. I suspect this is because I expressed my personal opinion there - is this correct? Did I do any other action that resulted in warning? Ki999 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RS. ––FormalDude talk

11:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@

original research clearly states that it does not apply to talk pages. So I believe the warning was a mistake. The only information I want to be added to A.T. page is the fact that he uses Rumble and Gettr. This is not an opinion. Not a point of view. This is a fact and nobody says it is not true, but a lot of people want to hide this fact. Regarding reliability of sources, I still struggle to determine it so posted everything possibly reliable in hope that unreliable sources will just be ignored. Where can I get help for determining source's reliability? In addition, I strongly dislike the way article is structured but don't know how it ideally should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki999 (talk • contribs

) 11:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RSP. ––FormalDude talk

12:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Improve article draft

Hello@FormalDude. Regarding the article on professional bodybuilder, Ko Chandetka, that you rejected. How many more independent reliable references would you recommend that I add? I am new to this and I modeled it after other articles on bodybuilders of equal notoriety. I was planning to add additional people from the sport and improving some of the articles with little to no references would like to get it correct. One challenge is that its difficult to find online references many of the athletes from 20-30 years ago. This particular athlete was in all of the major bodybuilding magazines, TV shows, DVDs, etc.. its just difficult to find them. As an example I manually entered an ESPN show that he was featured on. I can certainly add more of these but given the depth of research and time was hoping for some guidance on how many would be suitable especially before creating additional articles. Any guidance that you can offer would be appreciated. I would say that I have about five already that would meet all the criteria with the other references being there just to support specific facts. Akragas480 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:SPORTCRIT. Right now the Chicago Tribune is the only one. ––FormalDude talk

07:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. There appears to be a major issue in the Bodybuilder category with 90%+ of the articles needing attention. Most of the articles utilize sports publication references like Muscle & Fitness, ESPN, etc.. Can you clarify if these are permitted or if it needs to be completely independent of the subject of bodybuilding like the Chicago Tribune, etc... I have added references to other pages (not created by me) that were missing them but have been using these type Sports type of sources given there abundance. The sport does not get a lot of main stream media coverage and there is no Wikipedia standards (need to be a Mr. Olympia finalist, etc...) so the definition of notability is in a grey area. Akragas480 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@

notability standards. Either in terms of significant coverage (we usually consider 1-2 paragraphs as significant) or reliability. Personally I think it's best to trim down your sources a bit, as most of them are not reliable and does not contribute to proving the notability of the subject. I don't think much bodybuilding sources (at least the ones referenced in the article) are reliable. Justiyaya

15:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will trim out the ones that don't add either notability or relevant facts. I got a little carried away after the first rejection and added a bunch. My question was actually not related to this article but to the fact that 90% of the bobdybuilding articles on Wikipedia have the same issue (most worse than mine and of subjects less notable in the sport). I added references to one on Kris Dim (it had none) but wanted clarification that these were acceptable because they were all from the same type of sources as in the article I wrote before I attempted to fix more. I don't advocate anyone deleting most of the articles but rather fixing them so that the category is robust. Akragas480 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Akragas480 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ some can't really be fixed, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Not very familiar with that category of articles personally, think it's best to ask somewhere else. Justiyaya 04:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Love is a Story (2015 film)

Hi! Please, can you help me with a review on my contribution? I would appreciate some suggestions or, if everything is ok, I would like my article to be published. Thank you! --Followyoursoul (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@

BOLD is the title of the article in the lead section. ––FormalDude talk

04:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will make all these changes. Followyoursoul (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude. I disclosed a COI and requested we replace uncited content about software features with more concise cited content [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kahoot!#A_few_requested_edits here]. I was hoping you might be willing to review as an impartial editor if you are willing. Alejandro Viquez Rodríguez (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alejandro Viquez Rodríguez: Reviewed. ––FormalDude talk 09:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241 Online events: New: Alphabet run: E and F | Women writers and their works Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Request for help: Participate in preparations for our trend-setting contest in November Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• reliable
  for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your great contribution on Deception Pass Bridge and exemplary diplomacy: taking the time to discuss the changes peacefully, requesting a third opinion and staying so positive and proactive! Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place. AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 16:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 22:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. ––FormalDude talk 23:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wp ars wp russia wp 2022 elections former editors who edited the page. You sir contacted 3 editors

How do I add the canvassing template to you? — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.168.167 (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I contacted three editors who were already involved, and one !voted against my position. It is not canvassing, it's actually considered being a courteous editor. Unlike your clear canvassing attempts. ––FormalDude talk 08:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that the person using Russian IPs is a WMF banned editor. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 16:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Commented. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, my first edit is being reverted by another account. Could you have a look at the history and let me know if my understanding of NPOV and encyclopedic entry is lacking? Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akshata_Murty&action=history --Cockatoo17 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cockatoo17: You need to discuss it on the article's talk page instead of edit warring. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding. I have initiated discussion there. Cockatoo17 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Close challenge of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#RfC: Business Insider news reporting. Thank you.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Responded. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1107513142 you deleted an I.P.'s msg saying "goodbye" in the talk for suicide. May I ask u what u did after? Cos it looks like a suicide note. I'm not saying u did anything wrong but I'm just worried about that IP Stephanie921 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTFORUM, as is standard. Sometimes I'll leave a message like this on their talk page if a comment is particularly concerning, but this one was not. ––FormalDude (talk)

22:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yh I completely understand and support you removing it, especially considering how triggering it can be, but why didn't u find it concerning enough to leave a talk msg? It seemed worrying to me. Not trying to criticise u btw - just confused Stephanie921 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921: That is a page that attracts a lot of threats and some of them are clearly spam. This one was borderline in my view, as it was only one word. I'm probably one of the only editors who would even consider leaving a message, most would just remove it. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you are using a Rejection message that is similar to one of the ones that I leave, so as not to leave any doubt that a rejection is a rejection and does not mean to try again. Do you have it canned on your disk, or canned in Template space, or? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yeah I just have it saved on my computer and copy/paste when needed. Is that what you do? ––FormalDude (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a template. Actually, I have three templates, {{rejectdraft}}, {{rejectfornow}}, and {{rejecttoosoon}}. Copy-paste would, of course, work equally well, but I was trying to use a slightly more technical approach. I put the template in the curly braces in the space that the script provides. The template then transcludes itself. Then in a few minutes AnomieBot comes along and substitutes. It's a substitute-only template, but I let the bot do the work of substituting. That's what the bot is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, it needed rejecting. It was probably spam, but most of us don't know what it said because it is mostly in Malay. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! ––FormalDude (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A socialist opinion piece cannot be used to accuse Andy Ngo of being a Nazi in the lead of the article. It is not reliable whatsoever for that to be there, hence I removed it, and yet you reverted my edit. Bill Williams 13:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see

WP:CRYBLP. Well-sourced article content is not disqualified from the page. SPECIFICO talk

13:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Mentor for Nzs9

I see you have been appointed as a mentor for User:Nzs9. Are you able to provide some guidance to this user regarding topics such as reverting, and consensus through discussion on Talk Pages and Forums? In my opinion, this user is being both disruptive and stubborn on articles such as 2022–23 A-League Men and its associated talk page. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: I am not aware of being appointed as a mentor for Nzs9. They don't appear in my grow team feature mentees, and I certainly have not adopted them. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah apparently I became their mentor when Asartea retired from mentoring. The growth team mentorship is basically just a system for new users to easily get help from experienced editors. However, Nzs9 seems to not have their mentorship homepage enabled, as they do not appear in my Mentor dashboard's list of mentees. Regardless, I don't have any authority that you don't also have. I did leave them a message on their talk page, that's about all I can do. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You're the one being disruptive and stubborn actually @Matilda Maniac Nzs9 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@

cast aspersions on my talk page. Any more will be removed. ––FormalDude (talk)

00:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete theirs as well then please Nzs9 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know your template filled a gap of whitespace on my userpage perfectly! Huggums537 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Sweet, happy to hear it! I take suggestions for quotes too if you ever have any. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How can i make a page for myself as a small author who has a few magazine articles and what not? --Basi Affia (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• @
  notable, an editor will eventually take notice and write one about you. ––FormalDude (talk)
  23:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop ruining free speech. Terms, policies, whatever y’all want to call it are violations of free speech if you’re going to pull down a message for the public.

Absolutely ridiculous. 2601:2C5:8201:1BC0:EC0D:2973:9DBD:3B90 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a privately owned website, there's no free speech here. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude! It peaked my curiosity why you removed the "notability" and "sources needed" tags on the article

. Did you check the sources? The Chicago Tribune source was an exact duplicate of the NYT article (and said so at the top of the CT cite), and there is precisely half-a-sentence in the article about NoMad Piazza. The NYC DOT citation doesn't mention NoMad Piazza at all. The Experience NoMad citation is a primary source by NoMad itself. And the Bloomberg citation does not mention NoMad at all.

When maintenance tags are removed it should be done AFTER the problems are resolved, and I'm not seeing that that happened. I think the tags should be added back, which I will do, but I wanted to give you a heads up first so you know where I'm coming from. Netherzone (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to avoid excessive tagging, but you're right that it should have those two tags. Thanks for reaching out! ––FormalDude (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I was sending my friend a message and I edited a page, but thought it was just on my phone (like it wouldn't finalize on wikipedia) and when I saw it edited it, I removed it. My concern is I saw it posts your IP address as well if you don't have an account and I wanted to know if I could get that removed. It was just a mistake of actually editing the page that I rectified immediately. --KonysKidMilitia (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi KonysKidMilitia, please email your request to [email protected] or use this form and it will be taken care of as soon as possible. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 02:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 01:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi. I am currently looking for an Adopter. I saw on the Adopt-a-user page that you are currently accepting adoptees. I am part of Wikipedia since April but I still feel that I need to have a mentor who can guide me incase of any confusion. Would you be willing to help me? Thank you Fifthapril (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Newcomer mentorship instead. ––FormalDude (talk)

04:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I had a question for your. Is there a way to copy or add a Wiki page currently in Italian so that it's viewable on the English Wiki? I'm not looking to just translate it, I'd like it to appear as a page in the US Wiki, not just Italy. Is that possible and if so, how? Thanks! --MrIMFletch (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

interwiki link Justiyaya

03:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is abhay Tiwari.. --Abhay Tiwari.or (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You tell me, @Abhay Tiwari.or. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you awake --Dogmanterry (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Sleep is for the weak. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude. I wanted to see if you had a minute to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alejandro_Viquez_Rodr%C3%ADguez/requestchanges the last round of changes] I requested to the [[Kahoot!]] page at [[Talk:Kahoot!#A_few_more]]. This is for updating the infobox, some language changes to fix the current page's misrepresentation that Kahoot! is only used in academic environments, and removing the advert tag now that a lot of promotion has been removed. Let me know if it's on your radar at all or if I should try someone else. Alejandro Viquez Rodríguez (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alejandro Viquez Rodríguez: It is on my radar but you should still add a new {{edit request}} tag so that it appears in the queue. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello how do you make your own page on wikepidea --Blob 12345678 (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@

profile for your editing account? ––FormalDude (talk)

06:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

an article Blob 12345678 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

A change to a provision at

) 12:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244 Online events: New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September songs

Thank you for nice DYK reviewing! - music to explore - the new Casals Forum for chamber music is just wonderful. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance
  ) instead of the administrator making the block.
• FoxNews.com
  is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The
  WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets
  and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The
  2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review
  closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their
  reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication
  (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

This surendra pal singh tt is not politician in Rajasthan……open other person information not this person whose minister in vasundhara government in Rajasthan --Sagarbishnoi29 (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 19:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 03:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 09:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia strive for FACT-BASED content? --OneAmericanNoParty (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@OneAmericanNoParty: Wikipedia strives for "verifiability, not truth". Verifiability meaning that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be the truth. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Snl Writers

Why are deleting a page that has a source. If you’re that racist person on this Wikipedia page, I’m having your account banned for vandalism and racist behavior. Please stop this cause this so unnecessary. Blu30Top (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@

UGC and therefore not reliable. And of course I am not the IP editor making those racist comments on your talk page, I actually warned them. Please remember to assume good faith. ––FormalDude (talk)

17:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Belated) September drive bling

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to FormalDude for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 23:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke; I gave out a lot of barnstars, and got punchy. Very sorry for accidentally overlooking you. All the best, Miniapolis 23:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello FormalDude/Archive,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hi FormalDude and User:Bri, you are two editors of the current Signpost article...oh, I thought it was new but I see it has been out for a while already. I don't understand the question, or the grammar, or something, of "Perhaps because recall isn't binding and if I recall correctly there's never been a successful one. What would you think of making recall binding?". I wondered if the first sentence was a stray sentence meant to be part of the preceding answer. In the history of the article, however, the whole thing came in at once as a single "question". Maybe it is meant as a run-on type question, like where the period should be replaced by a comma? (But IMHO that doesn't exactly work.) Or is it meant to be a question with a preface, i.e. "Perhaps because recall isn't binding, and I don't recall there ever being a successful recall, I myself wonder if making recall binding would be an improvement. What do you think?" But as it stands it doesn't make sense to me. The first sentence doesn't make sense. Perhaps drop the sentence entirely? Or make it as a question with preface, like I suggest in the quote.

I suppose that maybe you didn't/don't see a problem, and that maybe I am being too literal somehow, but really I don't get it and I think the interview would be better if something was reworded here. I ask here rather than at the Talk page of the article, because this is perhaps picky and and wouldn't fit in the general discussion there. I dunno why no one else seems to have been bothered by this, but I am... Whether you address this in some way or not, anyhow, I do thank you for the article, and I do appreciate the interview very much! --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to me if you read it as a reply to the interviewee's words immediately preceding this line. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's intended to be a reply to the previous question. I was going to indent it to signify that but a copyeditor told me that was confusing so I chose not to. I just added numbers to each question to hopefully distinguish the follow-up questions more clearly for the reader. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I had tried to interpret as a follow-on to the previous question or the previous answer already, and trying again now, I don't see it. I do suppose I am stupidly bogged down somehow, but going from "I don't know" or from "It may work out" where the pronoun "it" is not exactly clear to me, to that comment(?)-and-question doesn't make sense. "It" seems to mean, I guess, something like "limiting the tenure of administrators", so the precedent to the question is "Limiting the tenure of administrators may work out, or it may not". Then "Perhaps because recall isn't binding" is a non sequitor, because having a recall process has not been suggested at all. Would it help you to understand that in my reading, my leading belief about what "limiting the tenure of administrators" could mean is that there would be a fixed term, say perhaps two years, with no suggestion of any recall process present, at all. Obviously you and many/most readers don't see the logical gap that I do (maybe because you are assuming limited means having potentially limited by the existence of a recall process???) or aren't bothered by it. I guess I think some other rewording consistent with what you were actually thinking (which I don't understand) is needed. Maybe include a phrase in the preface that "Assuming that limiting the tenure of administrators means having a recall process, then..." But that doesn't make sense because a recall process is not much like "limiting the tenure of administrators", it would only rarely affect anyone's tenure. I just don't get what you are meaning to say, meaning to convey, it doesn't make sense to me. Thanks again, anyhow, for your considering this. --Doncram (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doncram: I certainly see your confusion. The previous question is indeed not about recall specifically, but SFR brings it up in the first sentence of their answer: Possibly, although it doesn't seem like recall criteria generally swing any voters. They are comparing recall to tenure limiting because recall technically provides a way around the lifetime tenure of an admin. Their point that recall doesn't tend to swing RfA voters though is what I wanted elaboration on, because I believe that problem with recall is because it isn't binding, so a lifetime tenure limit wouldn't necessarily experience the same issue (assuming the tenure limits are mandatory). I wanted to point that out and see what SFR would think of making recall binding since that could address the issue of recall criteria not impacting voters. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

En que trabajas --XRN324abc (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@XRN324abc: ¿En Wikipedia? Soy editor voluntario. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

RMs are supposed to stay open at least seven days. Please revert the premature close of Talk:Folklore (Taylor Swift album)#Requested move 16 October 2022. Thanks. —-В²C ☎ 06:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, what is the market value of land at san Luis? --Berniepatio (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RD/H. ––FormalDude (talk)

15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I’ve been trying to add reviews to Alter Bridges albums The Last Hero and Pawns and Kings But it’s keeping going wrong or getting deleted How do I do it?

Cheers --DaveMooston69 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@DaveMooston69: Since you are a new editor, you may want to suggest the changes on the article's talk page so as to get advice and help from other editors on how best to implement your suggested edit(s). ––FormalDude (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 09:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 03:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

My article on Radical Empathy

Hey, I saw that you had reviewed my article, and saw what your referred to as the reason. When deciding to create the article I saw there was another article here on radical compassion, and assumed an article on radical empathy would also be suitable. I´m wondering why the article on radical empathy is declined while the article on radical compassion stands. Thanks for your work with reviewing:)Amstall (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@

Radical compassion is one of them. I have accordingly blanked and redirected the article. ––FormalDude (talk)

15:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense:)Amstall (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a brilliant idea ...

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		It was a brilliant idea to create a perennial source page for the Latter Day Saint Movement. This will contribute so much to a more diplomatic and accurate environment on Wikipedia. Thank you! Epachamo (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Epachamo:  Thank you very much! I hope it proves to be a success. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Was there a discussion somewhere that precipitated the deletion/changing to redirects of all these pages? It seems like a potentially controversial change to not go through the usual deletion process given the amount of information on each page. In at least a couple cases, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Missouri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine, there was a previous deletion discussion that resulted in "no consensus" or "keep". It seems odd that the previous results would be ignored without a similar discussion to see if the consensus had changed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BLAR. I should've checked if they'd had previous applicable deletion discussions, my mistake. ––FormalDude (talk)

02:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: If you're going to object to my BLARs, do not do so based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bulgaria, as that was a procedural close with no bias for renominating immediately, and therefore it is not a reason to avoid BLAR, as was the case with the two with previous AfD's that had outcomes. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, You stated"two previous AfD's that had Outcomes." Can you share what these were and how this relates? Thanks.--Dmm1169 (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dmm1169: The two AfDs mentioned by FyzixFighter directly above which were not procedurally closed and therefore were able to develop a clear consensus or lackthereof, which would be a reason to not redirect the page. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples directly related to this? Dmm1169 (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

FormalDudeOk. I misread what you meant by "two other outcomes". So any nominated page not procedurally closed could be blanked, regardless of outcome? Because, while not absolute, the general consensus was to keep in all cases.--Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

With a COI like yours I would take a step back from evaluating edge consensus in the LDS space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude. Please explain and source policy as blanking simply because of "not procedurally closed" is even the intent on wikipedia policy.--Dmm1169 (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dmm1169: You're misunderstanding. I blanked and redirected them as non-notable standalone articles. They were eligible for this because they had not been the subject of a previous AfD that was not procedurally closed. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter Given your recent redirects, it seems that you feel that most of the "LDS Church in location" articles are lacking in sourcing. If such sourcing were found, would you be open to the notability of these articles? Rollidan (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rollidan: Of course. And for the record, I don't feel all of them are lacking sourcing. There are some that are obviously notable, such as states that previously held the majority of the LDS Church population like New York, Illinois, and Missouri. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Except that you did include the articles for states like New York, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio in your massive BLAR. This is at odds with your statement directly above about these being obviously notable and calls into question the value of the mass BLAR. You also blanked states for which the Church at its members have played a significant role in their history, such as Arizona, Wyoming, and Nevada. Again, I would argue that this makes the mass BLAR look less like a well thought out process and more like potential illegitimate blanking and gaming of the system (BLARs don't require AfD) after an unsuccessful AfD. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: Please don't cast aspersions. Just because a topic is likely notable does not mean it is appropriate for an article, and those articles still do no have adequate sourcing as they stand. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the correct link at

) 15:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice of you to think of me,

GeoffreyT2000, but I'm not interested in running for admin currently. ––FormalDude (talk)

18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User page

Hello, FormalDude,

I noticed you changed your User page (as it left some broken redirects which Explicit fixed) and I really like your pumpkin. I might "borrow" it for the coming week. I'll cite my source in the edit summary. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Awesome! ––FormalDude (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I can not believe I never gave you a barnstar way back. Thank you for always offering help when I've asked! To say you went above and beyond to help when I was a new editor is an understatement. I strive to be as welcoming and helpful to editors as I keep going, and I wanted to let you know how much I appreciated the help, even if this barnstar is overdue :) SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 18:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice words Spf121188. It's been great seeing you grow as an editor. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Well deserved, and thank you for signing my guestbook! I look forward to seeing you around! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 18:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

There are so many buttons! What do they do? --PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@PlaneCrashKing1264: You'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the editing toolbar? ––FormalDude (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247 Online events: New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

You are recipient no.

) 11:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you or have you ever been an administrator in the English Wikipedia? Thanks,

) 14:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(

Politrukki, you can see here that FD is not and has never been an admin. One reason I like the Navigation popups gadget enabled is that you can use it to quickly determine if someone is an admin or not (and their general level of experience). Hope this helps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 16:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trying, but I had already checked the log and the list of passed RFAs since 2017. Why ask then? Because there's a change (maybe less than 1%) that a) there's a technical glitch, b) I missed something, or c) FormalDude passed RFA with another account. That's why I would prefer a direct answer. Thank you for your hint about Navigation popups gadget. I'm roughly familiar with it, but I don't think I need it.

Politrukki (talk

) 16:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@

Politrukki: I am not, nor have I ever been, an administrator. ––FormalDude (talk)

21:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given to FormalDude/Archive for collecting more than 25 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 03:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

Hi. On 31 October 2022, you removed a question I added in the rfc you started. In said rfc you are asking about adding criticism to the lead of a current candidate in the 8 November election in the US. Given the timing of the rfc with such content, I replied with a question as to whether Democrat Party candidates articles also get to have such criticism in their lead.

Removing such question without even an explanation was inappropriate. Such a move brings doubts as to the neutrality of the rfc you started. My suggestion and what I consider more appropriate is to reply to my question with your concerns and I would happily address them. Thanks for your attention. Thinker78 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An
  bureaucrat
  .

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The
  arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion
  .
• The
  arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block
  has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The
  2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process
  has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 22:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Stacey Abrams

If you're going to undo an edit which someone has made, you should provide a reason for doing so. Sean 2015 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

) 22:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The article Democracy in Iraq you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Democracy in Iraq for reasons why 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 Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello How to add a reference website link --Lalitsingh1914 (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lalitsingh1914: We have a detailed guide at Help:Referencing for beginners. Do you have any specific questions about adding references? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

) 13:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:DTTR. Especially long after it's been reverted. ––FormalDude (talk)

05:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I didn't see you had finally responded. I didn't template you. I followed

Politrukki (talk

) 20:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Politrukki: Do not edit my talk page again, I'm not interested in any feedback from you. ––FormalDude (talk)

22:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Adoption

Hey, can you adopt me (in wikipedia)? I've been recently blocked, and my extended confirmed was taken away after I "cheated the system" by making a ton of dummy edits. Is it possible you can help me become a "better wikipedian"? Senor0001 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No thanks. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I represent the Glen Campbell Museum in Nashville. I'd like to add information about our museum to the master page for Glen Campbell. Official website is: www.glencampbellmuseum.com.

Thank you! --Glen Campbell Museum (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

the piece which I edited was deleted even though I am very close to the person and was truthful and accurate --Leo Wolf Fredric Her (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Leo Wolf Fredric Her: Someone already addressed this at your talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please revert you insertion of ‘far right’ into Kari Lake’s bio.

The term ‘far-right’ is losing meaning because of its growing use as a conservative slur. This has created a void within the conversation within which actual far-right politics can exist unnoticed, without any suitable label.

Politicising Wikipedia is a very bad idea. 2001:EE0:1A6D:EE25:690D:DD23:C71C:95E8 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources which say there is a difference between traditional

far-right conservatives. It's not a slur in any way, shape, or form... it's a difference in political ideology. ––FormalDude (talk)

05:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Review request

Pls see Talk:United States#Edits by KlayCax Moxy- 13:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude, what can I do if someone wants to remove my edits because they don't view my references as sufficient? (I only cite work done by verified academics.) --

) 14:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 17:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

AfD

I noticed that you closed the AfD for Lara Nabhan as 'no consensus'. Is there a reason you did that as opposed to relisting the discussion? ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because it had received thorough discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You’re suggesting that the AP is a trusted source of information is laughable. The KKK was created by Confederate veterans: Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe. They were Democrats, and fought for the confederacy which was Democrat. The idea that the KKK was a right wing creation is proof of leftist propaganda. Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination. The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. For you to state that “We trust the AP fact checkers” shows your inability to read history. It makes you either wilfully ignorant, or unwilling to read history of the facts. You either know and are spreading propaganda, or just ignorant of history and trust the AP for your information. That’s lazy. 159.118.176.24 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Context is everything. When and where did I state "We trust the AP fact checkers"? ––FormalDude (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) War Democrat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Bobisland (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly stop messaging me. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You did the same exact thing to me on Stacey Abrams' page. You arbitrarily undid a valid revert (for which I had provided a detailed explanation and verifiable internal links) without providing ANY reason whatsoever. Sean 2015 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you still talking about a single edit from over a month ago? Wow that's pathetic. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you still talking about a single edit from over a month ago? Wow that's pathetic.

And yet, YOU'RE editing articles about the KKK during the Civil War era, which happened - what? - 150 years ago. Is that pathetic too? I mean, you seem to think that anything from a month ago can't be discussed or revisited. Just applying your standards right back at you.

And when you first reverted the edit about Stacey Abrams (something you did without providing any sort of reason, citation or explanation) I DID in fact question you right then and there and you IGNORED it. Not only because you knew you were in the wrong, but because you HAD no valid reason for doing what you did. No explanation and no apology was given whatsoever. FormalDude Sean 2015 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

So why don't we start over and you give me either 1) an explanation for why you did what you did (i.e. reverting information I had deleted which was clearly bogus), or, 2) an apology and a promise you won't do this again. Sean 2015 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Read

WP:BOLD and do not message me about this again. ––FormalDude (talk)

04:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays

	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, FormalDude/Archive! and best wishes for the New Year

Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ––FormalDude (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Referring to our sort-of ‘dispute’ on 19 Dec 2022 (over a citation of Schwalbe from 2004) .. don’t you ever have the experience, that you have said something to someone, or written him something, and afterward – five minutes or two days later – you think: well, I more or less said what I meant, but I could have said it neater, clearer, in more proper or (grammatically) correct or less ambigious language, etc.? Or, in citing someone else: well, I seem to have mixed my own feelings or ideas a bit too much into my representation of the reasoning of that other person, which makes my citation too ‘hybrid’, not consistent (or even not correct)? Or, in citing something from long ago (2004) where someone looks foreward to the future, but his future (= years after 2004) is presently (2022) partly past (e.g. 2010) but partly still future (eg 2030) and you get entangled and mixed-up (or confused) in how to represent all those past-, present- and future-tenses, concisely!?

Answering your last statement (“No, it is conditional based on the existing lack of stability and security”): Yes, that is correct. But in 2004, no one can say or predict, how long that existing situation will protract. Did it end in 2005, 2016, or ever or never? And will it ever or never end? So, why would Schwalbe have said/argued: .. ‘as long as stability were missing…’? We understand his argument, but to me it seems grammatically not very correct, not ‘complete’ enough ; and that would not be Schwalbe’s fault but mine, because I (tried to) cite(d) him. In saying: ‘.. would be missing…’ I think we represent more correctly, completely etc. the argument of Schwalbe. Corriebertus (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the point Schwalbe was making was that democracy for Iraq would not be possible while the country severely lacks stability and security. So grammatically it seems more correct to say "were" because "would" leaves open the interpretation that it is a potential future problem rather than an existing problem. Perhaps there is a better way to word the sentence in general that avoids both of our concerns, but I'm not sure. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at . | Sent at 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mentor! Can you help me on English Wikipedia. I originally contribute on bnwikis. I have no idea about English Wikipedia. If you help me, I will dare to edit here. Thanks. --≈ Farhan  «Talk» 03:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I know when it is okay to make an article about a web site? --LichCake (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

When there are sufficient notable sources to cite it and it is not about a single event in some cases too when referring to a BLP. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 Online events: New: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Geofocus East Asia Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2022 See also: Editing For Effie collaboration with the Smithsonian, January 8 & 9 (global event) Tip of the month: De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Abishe! Happy New Year. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @LunaEatsTuna, that's very nice of you to say – much appreciated. I hope you have a great New Year and that we get to interact more too! ––FormalDude (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic Wikipedia admins

• In the media: Odd bedfellows, Elon and Jimbo, reliable sources for divorces, and more

• Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief

• Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"

• Essay: Mobile editing

• Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022

• Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes

• Serendipity: Wikipedia about FIFA World Cup 2022: quick, factual and critical

• Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?

• Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!

• CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP

Award for 2022

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Question from Dinsour on User:Dinsour (02:03, 3 January 2023)

How do I add a photo to my thing --Dinsour (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dinsour: That depends on what your "thing" is. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello FormalDude/Archive,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous

WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed

are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see

WP:RFD

.

Discussions with the WMF The

revamping the landing pages

that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this
  short poll
  about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Question from Evaline.brueton-consulting.historian (14:58, 4 January 2023)

hi I would like to write a page for the victorian prison reformer Lord William Beauchamp Nevill, would this be possible

kind regards Evaline --Evaline.brueton-consulting.historian (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your vision / goals for FormalDude/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting article

Thanks for volunteering to host the deleted draft of the Fuentes, Trump and West meeting article (as per here). Do you have any specific goals for this material? I am interested in adapting some of it into the Nick Fuentes article. mennonot (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mennonot: Nothing specific at this time, feel free to adapt it. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

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

Administrator changes

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

Stephen

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal
  .

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The
  discretionary sanctions
  procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)