Archives

Oct. 2020–present: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12 Nov. 2012–Oct. 2020: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar from Joshua Jonathan

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Absolutely deserved for uncovering the Swaminarayan-sockfarm. A lot of work is waiting, but you did great! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goat from EpicPupper

Thanks for giving me that SPI idea, and for the guidance that came with it!

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence from L235

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi Tamzin, I'm Kevin. Thank you for your diligence on the Moksha88 SPI; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Barnstar from Sdkb & Writ Keeper

	The Civility Barnstar
	Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental efforts to explain why their comments were offensive have been helpful and appreciated by all. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely second this. Your essay is excellent, as well. You're doing the (proverbial) Lord's work, and with much more patience than I. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence from Marvelcanon1

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you Tamzin for your diligence in dealing with my issue Marvelcanon1 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"SPU" from Writ Keeper, who forgot that the word "SPY" exists

		..D
		Writ Keeper has given you a potato! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew!

A cup of Tea!

	A cup of Noon Chai
	TheAafi invites you to have a cup of Pink Tea with him as he feels you are one of the hardworking Wikipedians; and Pink tea would help you relieve yourself. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this was possibble! I admire your works on the platform, and mostly those at the RMT. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Swiftly cleaning up information in ongoing events and making sure that everything stays factual and also just being a great person -- 𝒥𝒶𝒹𝑒 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂] 00:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mishloach manot for you!

Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach! in jewish enby siblinghood, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

תודה רבה, Claudia! A pleasantly synchronistic treat to find immediately after submitting my first foray into your neck of the woods.

Vandalism warning from Nosebagbear and whoever whomever whoever most recently edited this page

Hello, I'm Polycarpa aurata. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)

​Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!

(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, people from the future. Confused why your name shows up here? See here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-WikiHate against my mother of all people

Re above: by itself, from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in the objective case, due to its function as the object of the preposition from. But, in the longer expression From who[m]ever edited this page, who[m]ever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrase who[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "whomsoever." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find that I did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter, Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you. :) ) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Opposition to human rights, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous, Tamzin. I demand you resign your patrollership. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these discussions are collapsed because no one's commented in a while. They're still open discussions, though! If you want to reply to something, just remove the {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags around the discussion.

Editing principles (Topic: Neurodivergence)

Awful joke (Topic: Adminship)

Not really related, so taking it to your talk page (Topic: Gendered pronouns)

toki! (Topic: Toki Pona)

mi lukin toki pona. epiku! QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@QoopyQoopy: pona a! sina sona ala sona e ma pona pi toki pona lon lipu Siko?

kin o sona e ni: tan lawa WP:ENGLISHPLEASE mi pana e sama toki Inli lon toki sina kepeken kipisi {{tooltip}}. sina ken ante a sama toki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I saw toki pona on your old signature and I thought it was cool :)

I am, by the way! Nice to see another toki pona speaker on Wikipedia. QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@QoopyQoopy: Ah. You dropped an "e", then. ;) Well cool, say hi on the server sometime. I'm wan Tansin—ken tonsi li ken jan there. Also, if you aren't aware of https://wikipesija.org, check that out! I'm not too active there atm, but it's a fun project, with a long-term goal of getting WMF backing. Which is a long shot, but would be really cool. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?

OMG YES! El_C 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = <!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->
|source_user = <!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->
|user_days_back = <!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->
|user_edits_back = <!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. -->
<!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->
|namespace = <!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" -->
<!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->
|always_watch = <!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|never_watch = <!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|update_frequency = <!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->
}}

Thus mine might look like

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
               User:Tamzin/XfD log
               User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
               Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
               User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->
|source_user = Tamzin
               'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->
|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}

That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.

Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"hint, TNT"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, sincere thanks for your contributions to Draft:Casa Ruby. I had lost some steam after trying to clean up at Ruby Corado (which still has quite a lot of unsourced BLP, promotional language, and general style issues). I think the Casa Ruby draft now meets WP:NORG and could be moved to mainspace as a stub, but I'll take a pass at it sometime this week to make it a bit more substantial. And of course, any further help at these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you again, Politanvm ^talk 18:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Politanvm: Well, like I said, I was glad to see someone's working on it. Casa Ruby strikes me as the kind of organization that, were an article on it to land at AfD, at least one person would !vote delete simply because people are bad at understanding the significance of local organizations in cities they're not from, but which would be kept in the end. They're probably the second-best-known LGBTQ-oriented nonprofit in one of the largest cities (with one of the most notable LGBTQ communities) in the country, and I think the sources bear that out. Another paragraph or two and I think it should be good to go as stub-bordering-on-start. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 months later, inspired by your RfA, I've built it out and moved it to mainspace: Casa Ruby

Thanks again for your help, and a well-deserved congratulations! Politanvm ^talk 01:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for your review on the Subtropical Highland Climate section of the Oceanic Climate page. It's certainly appreciated! G. Capo (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for moving several of the surname articles that I started from xxxxxx (surname) to xxxxxx, thus making them the primary article. Much appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: Thank you! This is going to be one of my go-to gnomish tasks for a while—not surname articles specifically, but more generally pages in Quarry 63493, "Possible non-CONCISE titles on enwiki", which looks for cases where the primary landing page for a term is a redirect to something other than a DAB page or list containing the page title as a substring. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, many such pages are valid, and with name articles I'm skipping past any that redirect to a specific person (even if—between you, me, and 132 talkpage watchers—I think that some editors are a bit overzealous in declaring people the primary topic for a mononymous forename or surname). You're welcome to help out with the query if you'd like, as is anyone else; maybe work from the back, or skip a few thousand rows, to avoid collisions. (N.B.: I may revise and re-run the query later if I run into a streak where I'm getting a lot of false positives for a specific scenario, like I did with DAB pages and lists.) Either way, again, thanks for the acknowledgment. Been doing other stuff the past few weeks, but when I get back to this query you'll probably see me lighting up your watchlist again. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

may memories be for a blessing

Thank you for articles such as List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, for your bot and SPI work, for "find me removing things more often than adding them", for paying tribute on your user page in channeled anger, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2728 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gerda. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in Look to Windward, "It's always one hundred percent for the individual concerned". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this means a lot to me, - see my talk today and 23 March. We have one name in common even, and named victims stand for all the unnamed. - "Stand and sing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Oksana Shvets was on my mind when I suggested at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War that perhaps a List of artists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War is in order—also to list Artem Datsyshyn, Brent Renaud, Mantas Kvedaravičius, and perhaps Maks Levin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes - just working on Maks Levin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May songs

Congratulation to being an admin now, and I'll come to bother you when I need (to not bother El C, 28bytes and Floq all the time). I didn't quite know where to place this, - too many images at the bottom, but move if you think here isn't good. I have the quirky DYK today, which is rare, and I don't quite know why music for peace was deemed quirky. Enjoy thinking of dolphins! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

serious memories today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I point you at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, - perhaps add that to what you watch. I mentioned my own mistake under DYK, and nothing happens. We talk about replacing two letters by one, no more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Happy? If I messed something up, it's your fault. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

more memories today, performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Le point de la nuit": essentiellement, c'est une combinaison de "faire le point" et, bien sûr, "nuit". Hope that helps. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Ah okay. Thanks! So would a good translation there be "Taking stock of the night"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A translation: yes? But I guess a more idiomatic expression would be something like "Nightly [news] report" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Ah okay, thanks.  Fixed in the article. Something about the mix of the idiomatic "point" and the prepositions there was really tripping me up. I really need to brush up on my French, but haven't had occasion to spend much time in France the past few years, and that's the only way I've ever really managed to stay fluent. Summertime soon, though, and we get plenty of Québecois tourists here, so maybe I'll find someone to chat with. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My change was to correct the name of the area is neutral and if you look from a historical point of view and not bring politics into this subject you will see, I'm asking you to be neutral and read about the names of this place it was never been called the Persian Gulf and it is wrong to claim that name without evidence of nations calling it that from the now time and historically even in western media and literature it is called Arabian Gulf please fix this error 151.254.242.101 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article calls it the Persian Gulf. See also Persian Gulf naming dispute. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Russian airstrike on Kyiv TV Tower (video featured) killed Yevhenii Sakun, one of at least 14 civilian journalists killed in the line of duty during the Russo-Ukrainian War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! So I noticed that there have been 2 (That I noticed) reports relating to something involving the RickRoll Land draft at EFFP. I don't have any problems with the reports specifically, but I do have a problem with the draft. Based on what I see on the draft, it seems like a clear violation of WP:NOT based on WP:MADEUP. However I'm not sure if it would actually qualify as a WP:NOT violation since technically, a YouTuber (Who doesn't even have their own article yet) created it and not someone on Wikipedia. I'm asking you since I think you dealt with both reports and I'd like your opinion on what should be done with the draft. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Well, it's a draft. The only speedy deletion criteria they're covered by are the G-series ones, none of which apply here. Particularly problematic drafts can be taken to MfD, but drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. There's lots of stuff incubating in draftspace that is not notable and never will be. Eventually people get bored enough that six months go without an edit, and then the draft is deleted. Assuming that it doesn't become notable... With online trends, you can never really tell. Every meme article was MADEUP at first. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sounds good. I would've immediately assumed it was just a joke article, however it was (apparently) created by a YouTuber even though it has no sources whatsoever which means that it wouldn't qualify for G3 (Unless for whatever reason that info was completely fabricated). Thanks for giving me your opinion on it. I'll probably keep an eye on it for a while to see if it ever becomes problematic enough to go to MfD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for the move? It's a neologism that appeared back in 2016 and is only mentioned in Ukrainian media. Couldn't find it in the academic sources. This term cannot be used as a name for a Wikipedia article. It basically doesn't exist (there are no quality RS that mention it). Please move it back to Russian fascism.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaura79: Thanks for reaching out. My move of the page was procedural in nature, based on an informal consensus (permalink) on the talk page. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself. As I noted when moving the page, if there is any further disagreement as to the page's title, the next discussion should be a formal RM [requested move]. For instructions on starting that process, please see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please let me know if you have any further questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tamzin, I hope you are well. I was just noticing that I have created over 110 articles on this Wikipedia, and also improved about 11 articles, among which I helped to make two good articles. So what I did moments ago is that, I made Template:User improved to indicate on my userpage, the number of articles that I have improved, because one can't include those in the articles created, even if the whole of the content, is ones own work. I would like you to fix the template stuff for me, because I have no knowledge of "template-editing". I just happened to make few little templates. I don't also feel the name is a nice one. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 23:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: It looks good to me! The only technical issue is that you should get rid of the <includeonly>...</includeonly>, so it shows up when viewing the template page. Personally I'd change the wording of the text a bit, but that's not really a technical question. And the name seems fine to me! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? When I filed the two recent reports, I was concluding that the sockpuppeteer was trying to create a walled garden of articles on some films and actors. I didn't think that there was current log data. That's about all. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: My question is just if you have any thoughts on the IP's allegations there. The filing doesn't present enough evidence, and the filer is unavailable to expand it, so I thought I'd reach out as a Hail Mary, in case you had anything to add based on your experience with the case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. My own opinion is that the IP is probably a different sockpuppetmaster who is an enemy of Pakistanpedia, but I am cynical about IP editors reporting conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are making it look like Wikipedia is hiding something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.82.114 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP 24. All I did was remove the content on the page as a proactive measure. Some time after that, a steward suppressed the whole account, taking those edits with it. If you want to get that reversed, you would have to talk to the steward team. (To be honest, as it stands, that page should just be deleted, seeing as the only public revision is the blank one.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think deleting the page would just make it look even worse. If you can take the heat for being the last editor to the page, I'm minded to let it stand. Otherwise I could remove your username from it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being the last one in the history, no. But to avoid confusion I've left a note in the page history directing concerned parties to the steward team. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There's a small chance it might get restored one day, btw, but that's above even my pay grade. The peanut gallery may wish to know that having both seen the contents, I think we'd agree there wasn't anything very exciting there .. no rants or manifestos or anything, basically just a few userboxes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Raymond Spencer, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this was a mistake I apologize for the notification here. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Happens. And you're much nicer about it than the last person who unpatrolled me. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your request for adminship. I would possibly accept... But I doubt that I made sufficient amount of recent edits on Wikipedia. I like your userpage style, more than 0 edits. I used more than 1 edit, but please believe me when I say I was not copying your idea. I didn't even know you until now. And about the notice on your talkpage not appearing on mobile, my talkpage on my home wiki has one I made from scratch. It appears to show on mobile. Just thought that might help. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@L10nM4st3r: I don't claim any monopoly over silly userboxen. :D As to the mobile notice thing, yeah. I'm still thinking about the best way to do that. Thanks for the suggestion. Will consider it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - I was very pleased when I clicked on the link at the top of my watchlist that appeared this morning. Off to a strong start - good luck! Girth Summit _(blether) 08:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Girth. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the adminship nomination and thanks! (Maybe good luck would've been better, whatever.) SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 14:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was totally pleased to see your RfA. Great news. JBW (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see this. I can't remember when it was that I asked you (as PinkAmpersand) about RfA and you declined. Must have been quite a few years ago now. Anyway, looks like a slam-dunk pass from where I'm sitting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Heh, Tavix linked it in his vote. I did plan on taking y'all up on that at some point, but then wound up dropping off activity-wise for a bit (see Special:Diff/1084656730). But I do appreciate both of you for having suggested it back then. :) I'd actually forgotten about it until someone looking through my talk archives found it in June or July, and it's what got me to start thinking about going for it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anis. :) And I don't mind the lack of "good luck"; if anything I feel like "break a leg" would be more apt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and thank you, JBW. :) Sorry, got mixed up by the indentation here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the RFA nomination, good news coming from there!

(And to be the 1,050th administrator.) Severestorm28 01:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Severestorm. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when you would be nominated, and I think (and hope) that it will pass. As an unrelated side note, on the 2022 Vector the foundation seem to have moved the table of contents to the left sidebar. Zippybonzo | talk 18:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I think in Q23(b) you meant Mathglot, not Mathsci? (They are definitely WP:CONFUSED) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Thanks! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming concerned that the number of supports is increasing fast enough that it might endanger my record if this goes on for 7 days. Please consider either withdrawing the request, or loudly and publicly saying something boneheaded as soon as possible to slow the support, or violating some bedrock WMF policies and at least earning it. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: loudly and publicly saying something boneheaded as soon as possible to slow the support Well if you insist...

Floquenbeam is a great admin!

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should do it. Thank you. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 1 : Floquenbeam is always right. Rule 2 : When Floquenbeam is wrong, see Rule 1. Please note this post uses recycled humour...Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

We're an environment friendly comedy club here at tamzin's talk page; we recycle 100% of our jokes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On this talk page we also comply with MOS:LISTGAP. :P /lh -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that has been bugging the heck out of me; I used the mobile reply tool, I'll file a bug report :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'know, Floq, you really jynxed it. Because I'm not gonna beat that record, but I might give you a run for your money on the record for most controversial RfA with above 250 support. I didn't look all the way back, but I'm pretty sure the list goes you, Dihydrogen Monoxide, EvergreenFir. And I've already surpassed Evergreen for third in that dubious ranking. So, thanks a lot, jerk. /s <3 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they)

  I'll have to console myself with "highest number of opposes but still passed". I think even "highest number of participants" is in jeopardy. I don't know about "most controversial RfA with above 250 support"; that sounds like one of those made-up baseball statistics, like "highest OBP in second game of a doubleheader". But there were tons of votes in mine, and it went to a crat chat, and it passed, so at least I win that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I swear, Floq, I'm gonna ban you from this talkpage if you keep talking about things that will or won't happen. /s P.S. Who's the only pitcher to throw three pickoffs in an inning? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, OK, I'll stop predicting. I'm horrible at it anyway. I'll stick to barnstars and the like. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Asking for a friend: how mad would you be if I were to say they were to say "Congratulations on your RFA passing!" right now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dammit! 2 minutes away from being funny! --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about this here? We have seen a record broken… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

458 !votes. Although Tamzin still has not reached 117 opposes or 16 neutrals… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tamzin still has not reached 117 opposes You say that like it's a bad thing, 3. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, [cuss]. Better use {{tind}} next time…

On that same token though, if you do receive 117 opposes (which I sincerely hope you do not), you must garner 351 supports or face the bureaucrats. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to common misconception, RfAs in the discretionary range don't need to go to a 'crat chat. They usually do, and I'm guessing this would, but it's not required. When I started editing, 'crat chats were by far the minority of discretionary-range closes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin. One extra thought about the suppression and restoration of the question at RfA. "If I use my name, it's OK, if I use a pseudonym it's not" was a line I could enforce - and indeed referenced before making the suppression. Instead I will say that this is a level of nuance that I don't think fair to expect from OS in terms of enforcement - that is you reserve the right to have non-peseudonomous accounts be considered OUTING unless you also link to your real name with those accounts. It can be tricky enough for me to figure out if there has been disclosure onwiki such that something is not OUTING, and asking me to do that on other sites feels a step too much. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: "fair to expect from OS in terms of enforcement": This would be completely right if you were somehow criticized for guessing wrong. But I doubt anyone on the planet thinks you did anything wrong. No one expects you to research each person's off-wiki posting exhaustively before suppression. Tamzin's just given you further info, which led you to unsupress. Seems like the system worked perfectly. The only imperfection is the extra work caused, which is probably not going to happen very often. And, the main reason I'm sticking my nose in here: I hope you didn't misunderstand my comments in that thread as any kind of criticism of the suppression; it most definitely wasn't. If I was still an OS, I'd have suppressed it too, in the absence of Tamzin's request to the contrary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an OS success story @Floq. An anonymous editor saw something that was OUTING, came onto IRC, requested help, an admin saw, revdelled it, asked for oversight, it was oversighted as a tool of first resort, it became clear the target was OK with the comment, and it was undone. I have truthfully spent more time on this userpage about this than in the suppressing and unsppressing - in fact the only reason the original suppression was close was I double checked Tamzin's privacy notice.

My comment is about next time, when maybe Tamzin hasn't seen the edit between the time it was posted and the time it's suppressed and can't give informed retroactive consent. If Tamzin had said "I am OK answering this question" or "I am OK with this account being linked" as to why it should be restored, I wouldn't have said anything here. But the actual response to you was it satisfies my test of a site where I participate under my real name. To which I say "No, it fails the test that was setup" and adding nuance to make clear that it didn't fail the test feels like it would - and did based on the change below - make the ask complex.

When an OS request comes in, I often feel some compunction to respond to it. Even if I would rather not pause my TV show, put down the book I'm reading, or stop what I was doing at work, I will generally try to make time for it because the things we oversight can cause real damage and real harm and the ask on my time, in 90%+ of circumstances, is small compared to the good I can do. Having an individualized workflow for what should be suppressed is one thing, having it take real detective work on my end is a different thing and not part of the bargain for me. If I wanted non-simple work that I was obligated to do, I'd have opened some ArbCom appeal I haven't weighed in on. And that's why I'm pushing back on adding nuance here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought I'd replied, but apparently there was an edit conflict with Floq and I mixed that up with the earlier edit conflict with Sdrqaz' deletion and closed out the tab. Sigh. Let's see if I can remember what I'd typed... @Barkeep49: You make very good points. I certainly don't want to make things any harder for the OS team. This is the first time my waiver of OUTING has come into play anywhere, and it clearly still has some kinks to work out. Does this address your concerns? Trying to burden-shift onto the !outer. (Wait how the Hell is that a redlink? Next you'll tell me fee shifting is... Oh gosh.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In one sense it does address my concerns. In another sense, not really as I explain above to Floq. It feels like part of your concern is that someone could get in trouble with the OS'er in this circumstance. It never entered my mind to warn or sanction the editor who asked the question, so if that's your concern I wouldn't sweat it, and would go back to the original wording. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamzin, I hope you're doing well during what I'm sure is an unsettling period of 7 days. As far as I know, it is clearer to sign answers to questions on RfA pages, as they are comments you wrote, in addition it clearly denotes the end of the comment, helpful for ones that span paragraphs. I noticed the first one was signed, but none of the others were signed. I first applied the unsigned template, as I do normally, but I looked for reference at the previous RfA, by Colin M, and saw those weren't signed either, so I reverted it.

The obvious solution to this problem is to ask you to sign them yourself. I didn't reach out to you about it initially because the last two times I have posted it here, you haven't taken too kindly to it. However, I hope my message here has a different tone, and it's more so my intention to get the confusion cleared up-- as I found the page by editing normally and think they would be better that way. So, would you be willing to sign them? Naleksuh (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Naleksuh: Traditionally RfA answers aren't signed. I've removed the one signature I'd included by accident.

Your message confuses me: You seem to be aware that I don't want to interact with you, but seem to not get that that means the correct response is to leave me alone. Why you think that your own misunderstanding of RfA norms creates a good exception, I do not know. I do not think you mean me ill will. I think I'm in the minority in that regard, as a number of people have told me they're concerned about your behavior toward me. Certainly it's a bit harder to assume good faith when you choose to contact me at a time when you know I risk consequences at RfA if I do anything elsewhere on-wiki that could be taken as causing drama. But I will continue to AGF. I think that you have some uncanny knack to always land on the worst possible misinterpretations of subtext and tone, and that it makes you come off as malicious when you're not. So this time I will be very clear, for both our sakes: Please do not post on this talk page again, except for procedural notifications (e.g. if you RfD a redirect I created). Where possible, please leave me alone elsewhere on Wikipedia as well. If you would like to acknowledge this message, you can do so with the thank button (just the once). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PerryPerryD, but kennahara. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Admin's Barnstar Congratulations on WP:200. That is 200 support votes, an incredible acomplishment, especially for only the 2nd or third day. could even be 300 by the end. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're on track to pass. In case I forget, just thought I'd wish you good luck! I look forward to coming across your signature in the future :) — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I was pinged, or saw my name repeatedly. Mistaken identity? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi Mathglot​.^[Joke] Yes, see above (bottom of that thread). Apologies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. It was interesting to see how many times checkusers were used during this RfA – after all, SPI skills were the most important thing. Congratulations, Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar

A barnstar seems performative, but a private email seems not brave enough, so I'll selfishly choose the former, and hope that it incrementally lifts your spirits as much as an email might. An honorable >70% "pass" is better than a silent 99% "pass". I can't find it now, in that increasingly unfollowable discussion, but somewhere you said this discussion is making you question whether you want to spend time in a community that turns a blind eye towards those who would erase you. Remember not to ignore the other +/- 250 people. Wishing you resilience for the next few days, and beyond. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Surveys since 2016 consistently find > 75% of Americans think polarisation is getting worse and it needs to be addressed, so can't blame the few who are opposing. Though it does seem quite a misreading of your track record. My reading is your radical transparency & decency on this issue is likely to have a net depolarisation and NPOV enhancing effect, which is much needed. 264 dwarves 40, or even if the oppose count grows to 90 before the end. That said, if it does get too stressful, we'd want you to do what seems best for you, of course. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask about your toki pona journey? How long did it take you to learn, and have you found it to have been a worthwhile effort? I'm tempted to give it a go.... Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ascendingrisingharmonising: Normally I'd say this is off-topic, but hey, anything to pass the time right now. I started learning Toki Pona for the same reason that Sonja Lang invented it: to simplify my thoughts. I was in a bad place, and doing a lot of therapy, and the therapy wasn't helping much. I started learning Toki Pona—just through reading pu—and found that that was helping a lot more! So I kept going. I would journal in Toki Pona at least once a day, and after a while I joined the largest Discord server for it, ma pona pi toki pona. (You can find a link if you Google it; now's a bad time for me to violate WP:SPAM.) There, I could talk in Toki Pona with others, by text and by voice, and I learned it a lot faster.

As to how long it takes to learn... There's a fairly common misconception that you can become fluent in Toki Pona in a matter of days or weeks, and that just isn't true. What is true is that you can learn how to assemble a grammatically correct sentence quite quickly, meaning that you can write things for yourself that you'll understand later. What takes longer is learning to understand what others say, and learning to express your thoughts in a way that isn't just translating from your native language, but rather thinking in a pona manner. For instance, I recently saw a new speaker talk about drinking telo pi kili lili loje jelo, 'liquid of the red yellow circular fruit'. They were still learning to combine words, and it was good that they'd figured out the right words to fully express the concept "orange juice", but a friend corrected them: "You can just say telo, 'liquid'". Because Toki Pona is a language about simplifying things. That takes some getting used to. I still wouldn't call myself quite fluent. I can speak fairly fluently in conversation, but I haven't quite internalized the pona mentality 100%.

Anyways, given that this is off-topic, if you have further questions about Toki Pona, feel free to reach out by email. Or I suppose it would be on-topic to discuss this on my Meta talkpage, since there's an active request for a Toki Pona Wikipedia and the language is already in use on Wikisource. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, just hang in there, insofar as you mean well for the collaborative project and you truly want to serve, you would get the bit. Just hang in there it would all be over soon and you shall emerge successful. Celestina007 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Celestina007. Don't worry, I'm not giving up on my supporters. People have put too much time into defending me for me to throw that away. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine getting opposed for saying that oppressive regimes suck. How odd. casualdejekyll 22:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you copied my color! ZOMGCOPYVIO! /s -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualdejekyll, I understand, I believe we have all failed RFA candidates, I mean the collaborative project as a whole, now, for a collaborative project which has the mantra of RFA isn’t a big deal it sure is looking like a big deal with the unnecessary pillorying of the candidate. The community complains that in the last 4 years the number of editors willing to serve has diminished exponentially. I think it was a sysop I regard, I think it was Ritchie333, who first admonished us long ago to stop deceiving ourselves and categorically stared that Adminship is Infact a big deal. In the end I trust Tamzin would emerge successful, insofar as they mean well for the community and truly want to serve which I believe they do. Tamzin is familiar with policy, they have a clue, they have a perfect temperament and most of all have demonstrated a need for the tools, these are the requirements & Tamzin checks all boxes. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My admin criteria is purposely much lower than many other editors' - and makes no explicit mention of edit count or any such statistics. I should probably save it on a userpage somewhere so I can refer it to other people more easily. casualdejekyll 22:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the community also underestimates its ability to deal with rogue and problematic admins, Celestina007. I don't expect Tamzin will be one, and I'm glad they're on the way to passing, but if they are the community will be able to address anay problems that arise. I'm somewhat surprised that the opposing votes do not even mention Tamzin's high regard for transparency and disclosures -- all indicators of an editor who'd follow ADMINACCT. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting our color matched before a commenter on the RfA pointed out the accessibility issue with it. I just figured that I'd solve it the same way you did casualdejekyll 22:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin, by mistake it got clicked [n.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Baidy540] . Now, should I file this again or the old one can be considered. RS6784 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RS6784: Don't worry, I'd already noticed the issue and fixed it for you. :) Your filing is now in the queue to be reviewed. In the future, yeah, it's the first box that shows up in "How to open an investigation:", not the second. The second is only for non-autoconfirmed users. (Also, I'm not an admin.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yet! In about 5 hours you will be! casualdejekyll 20:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{Re|Tamzin} Should I file this again. RS6784 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks editor ! RS6784 (talk)

Dear Editor @Tamzin:, can I file this again because it says open but not in the yellowish area of CU requested. RS6784 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RS6784: Don't worry, I updated the case for you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you're doing okay. This may have been better as an email so no worries if you remove this. I agree with what I said in my oppose, but I support the great work you're doing here at Wikipedia, and I support Tamzin the person, so please don't get discouraged from continuing to do the good work you do improving the encyclopedia. When/if your RfA goes through, I hope to see you around and hope that we can all move forward without any hard feelings. Endwise (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a supporter and I feel exactly the same way. The smiley just made my day. I gotta say: this is one of the more interesting RFAs to read. There is real clash of ideas and while it must be nerve-racking to be the candidate, I am grateful they stood for sysop and like my new friend Endwise, hope their wiki-career continues to inspire, regardless of the outcome. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of writing this, Tamzin actually ended up winning the rfa. Congrats Tamzin! Even though I opposed, like this person said here, please don't be discouraged to edit Wikipedia. Keep doing good work in improving Wikipedia! Have a good day! Toad40 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on WP:300, with almost being the most supported RfA of all time. This is nothing to scoff at and is an incredible acomplishment. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 05:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

did I mess up the numbering on the RfA? Elinruby (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Don't worry, you're only about the 100th person to. :D (Not even sure that's an exaggeration.) You've gotta put a # before the colons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so totally blaming Primefac for my mucking up the numbers. I don't know how to blame them for me getting it wrong the 2nd time, but I'm sure I can find a way Nosebagbear (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Best Drama Barnstar
		The Best Drama Barnstar is awarded for having a bit part in one of the best dramas of the year. Thank you for your diligent work. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know I said in advance people should say "break a leg" and not "good luck"... Maybe all this happened because some didn't listen.

Curtsies and/or bows. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-related.. somebody needs to start reverting me if I add more to the already bloated RfA. I'm getting into the same territory Perry was. casualdejekyll 00:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A process not for the faint of heart. I'm stressed and I barely contributed. The way you handled the process makes me proud to have been a supporter. BusterD (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Will try to soon. Haven't had much of it. (Not that my sleep schedule has ever been great, as Bilorv noted in their support.) Thanks for the suggestion. <3 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Immediately after I sent this reply, my mother (who schlepped out here 9 hours from D.C. without a car, just to keep me company as things got intense), made the same suggestion. So congratulations, @BusterD, you're an honorary Jewish mother. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice thing to say. I think User:theleekycauldron might agree. That might be fine bit of customized wikilove. I'd settle for freshly baked prune hamentashen. BusterD (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prune?! Oh, Jewish mother for sure. The only Jewish-mother-ier flavor would be mohn. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just waiting for the eze shtuyiot and we'll be set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a ring if I'm ever in town, we'll bake it together :) I have to agree with BusterD's initial comment, too. My browser history shows that I hit refresh on your RfA more often than I did my own, and that's really saying something.

seriously, Tamzin, you did a fantastic job. In this weird Jewish quasi-family that's forming here (actually not the first time this has happened to me), I've never been prouder to call you my sibling. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've managed to succeed at something that a certain someone on Wikipediocracy rather hilariously failed at, which is make me cry. /pos Thank you, Claudia. <3 I hope you know I'll be first in line whenever RfA/theleekycauldron 2 rolls around. (I'd offer my nomination, but you'll probably have to wait another decade or two before I'm no longer the most controversial possible nominator... Probably better off going with Icewhiz and a GRP co-nom.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, you never know how low that bar goes... I could always nominate myself :) <3 wikipediocracy is totally a shitshow, but good god did I laugh out loud at parabola's rants. A+. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I self-nommed on Wikidata... 34-0. I had 2,013 edits and four months' tenure. Held the record for most successful RfA there for years, still I think 4th or so. Imagine if it worked that way here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron - as I understand it the real value of nominators is in the advice and behind-the-scenes work they can offer rather than the endorsements they give. Sure, some people will vote along the lines of "I trust any nomination by X", and that is of course a benefit, but that might be 2 or 3 votes out of hundreds. What all this is getting at is - don't dismiss the idea of a self-nomination. I think we might do well to bring back them back as "something we do"... Apologies to Tamzin for using her talk page to blather on. firefly ( t · c ) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: Oh, I couldn't agree more; mother prune hamentashen up there was invaluable during my run. (seriously, can't thank BusterD enough.) I'd love it if self-noms became more normalized for others; I think they're not because while the particular nominator might not matter so much, people expect that any serious adminship candidate has been around long enough to build the connections to rustle up those nominators. But it'd be nice to not have that expectation :) Tamzin, I have to ask you if you purposefully ran at 2013 edits because that's the year you ran... if so, kudos, that's fantastic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And nominators might have it difficult to find editors to have not a phrase that can be opposed by lets say in some words we might not be able to repeat in a discussion. And least I wouldn't have been able to use such words as Hammersoft did. But for now that's allowed, we have a Sysop precedent.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Whether you become a sysop or not, you are still a great editor. 😊 Zippybonzo | talk 06:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your RfA. It had about 75.2 percent supports. I'm pretty sure that it's going to succeed. Congratulations! I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 06:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you know what? You and Celestina007, you have a penchant for tempting fate. now you get a brand-new essay that's basically one giant West Wing reference. Don't tempt the wrath of the Whatever! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are an incredible human being. You are an amazing editor and a beautiful part of this community. Your impact is most definitely felt and it is such a positive for this encyclopedia that I don't believe that could even be questioned. But more than that, the civil way you have conducted yourself through the difficult events of the last week and the lovely way you interact with those around you on a daily basis can only ever be matched. It saddens me that you were so affected by everything that you lost sleep, though I understand full well the intimidation you may have felt, or that you were stressed to a breaking point. But I am equally thrilled that you had those around you supporting you through the process. Regardless of the outcome I want you to know you are supported, as a fellow editor and human being. Keep shining your Light and singing your Song. I don't think there is a barnstar here for that but there is in my world and you've earned it. --ARoseWolf 13:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For when there is no other barnstar for a situation.

PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PerryPerryD, not to hijack Tamzin's talk page but it looks like they redid that barnstar. It looks incredible. I'm all about some rainbow (lol). --ARoseWolf 14:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations again on WP:300, achieving the most !votes in an rfa since 2019, being the most supported rfa since 2019, and staying calm during all of this. Regardless of the result, Its clear that people appriciate you. so dont forget that. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 13:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grats from me too. But I think it was bigger than Perry thought. In my reading you have the most participants ever in an RFA, the most supports in an RFA, the most kbs of discussion, one of the few records you don't seem to have is most opposes.... ϢereSpielChequers 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers crossed. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, kudos on your excellent demeanor throughout. That is, in great part, what convinced me to stay in the support column. Your temperament throughout, despite the stress and timbre of the conversation, is a good look. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What they all said above. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damn sand gets into everything. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your day on the beach tomorrow, and hopefully this all won't spoil the day for you. Happy editing, and maybe soon happy mopping too. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makin' sure it's not lost on others... I admire your sand (#3). You've been on my Awesome Editor list for a long time, and it looks likely that you will soon go on my Awesome Admin list as well. You probably already know this, that when we see dolphins, then we can be confident and assured that there are no sharks around. Just another reason to love those cute, big-brained swimmers! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		Hey there. That looked rough. But don't let it get you down. You're you, and you are great. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The beach was nice. I saw a lot of dolphins. Here are three of them, on their way to jaywalk (jayswim?) across U.S. Route 9. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most important RfA update I've ever seen. casualdejekyll 00:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	My !vote about you being kind to me was sincere. If you become an admin, you'd be a good one. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your notice above and in case you haven't found it, there is a really good template called {{If mobile}} I've been using when I close move requests. The template I use, {{Requested move/end}}, does not appear in mobile view, and I use If mobile to let my closure appear for mobile users. You might find it useful at the top of this page and in other applications. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 13:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] SN54129 13:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

Now get back to not worrying about it! :) casualdejekyll 13:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RFA as successful, congratulations. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or any other administrator. Useight (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You did it! Congratulations. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! :D — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats - enjoy the scary new buttons everywhere. :) More seriously, you'll do brilliantly, I have every confidence. firefly ( t · c ) 13:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, Tamzin! It's no cetacean, but I see above that you already have found one. Time for a new signature? ;) HouseBlaster^talk 13:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations for the successful RfA, after spending 35 hours of waiting for your results. Thingofme (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, Tamzin. You deserve it. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hearty congratulations, Tamzin. You finally did it. I was really worried with your RFA seeing all the oppose votes. Enjoy your adminship. Regards, Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations. Going through chats is never fun, I know from personal experience. May your tenure as an admin be free of angst and drama. Although, if you crave that, you could consider RfB eventually . -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Avi that's just pure evil and you know it ^[FBDB]. Besides, anyone with any chance of passing an RfB did their RfA like fifteen gazillion years ago, anyway. hot take: instead of the current system bureaucrats should instead be a committee like ARBCOM but separate, and they should return to being a "normal" admin after their term is over casualdejekyll 15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But crat's are evil. Just ask about 20%–40% of the participants of every RfX! -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! What a long, strange trip it’s been! Now here’s your mop. :) — BDD (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Many congrats, Tamzin... It took a long while to get the outcome but it was worth the wait... Congrats once more Volten001 ^☎ 14:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations on passing! Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 14:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Crazy journey, but I'm glad you made it. Happy mopping! -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, Tamzin. And sorry our exchange came back from the dead to make it such an absurdly close thing. I'm sure you'll do a great job. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• hell yes! hugs in celebration, nicely doneee :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It’s a shame that it took all that to get to this point, but this is the right outcome. Congratulations, Tamzin! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• From one "that was crazy" to another "that was crazy"... congratulations, now go read WP:DAFT (the real reason people run for adminship 🤫) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations!! — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yaaaay! Graham87 16:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations Tamzin!.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Crikey, I thought I'd seen baptisms by fire, but this was something else altogether. Still, you have the mop now - may you use it wisely. I was impressed with your communication throughout the RfA, which in this case made a serious difference. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• To say "congratulations" feels wrong — well done for passing, but that RfA has so little to congratulate. I'm so, so sorry we the community are in this state. — TNT (talk • she/her) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats, and now please get to work immediately: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Mz7 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, I think that the socks won’t congratulate you though, so I will on their behalf, otherwise, you might get fed up of them. But in all seriousness, you have a couple of achievements, the 1050th admin, the most voted RfA and probably the most controversial RfA for a while. Zippybonzo | talk 17:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats, Tamzin. I wish you all the best and support you 100%. --ARoseWolf 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats! Don't break anything too quick :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations on breaking two records within your RfA! You faced the bureaucrats gracefully. May you use the mop wisely and in a record-breaking manner! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 18:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, and respect for your strong composure during the RfA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations; I am in awe of your strength to maintain composure through all that! Leijurv (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! Sorry that the community has once again proven that they do not want new admins. Most of it is nothing to do with you. You made the mistake of needing the tools at a time when RfA has almost successfully killed off all candidates. You are an excellent editor, don't take the discussion at RfA too seriously, thanks for persevering when other candidates in similar positions have chosen to withdraw, and good luck as an admin! — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You totally rock! And your ability to keep your cool under pressure was amazing. Congratulations! Netherzone (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, and Godspeed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! I am late to the party but I wanted to wish you all the best for the future. I also "believe strongly in telling the truth", and I have nothing but respect and admiration for how you stayed honest under intense scrutiny. That reassures me that you will have a principled approach to adminship and that you will do more than just fine. Good luck! — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, Tamzin! I felt guilty for not speaking up at the RfA in support of you, but I knew you would make it anyway. Your tenacity at SPI convinced me long before that you were going places around here. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! --Ferien (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats on the extra tools. It's always great to see a SPI regular who I don't disagree with on proposed admin actions get the tools. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations, Tamzin! I'm glad that the RfA went through. You will make a great admin. Renerpho (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I know I said this over on the Discord, but just wanted to reiterate it here: massive congratulations on passing the RfA. I wasn't around at the time, but you would have had my full support - I wasn't aware you'd received the highest amount of support !votes ever, crikey - what an achievement! I also highly admire how you answered all the questions put to you with civility and decorum. You'll be a great admin for sure; I have full confidence in that. Patient Zero^talk 04:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin You do know you owe me a pack of fine Marlboro cigarettes for being the first to congratulate you on your successful RFA in advance right? Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	You didn't just win–You set records
	As others have pointed out above, yours was the most voted RfA. And now the real work begins. Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Useight.

I have been writing out some significantly longer thoughts as the RfA progressed, and will post them once I've cleared my head a bit more and thoroughly read every oppose. Briefly, though:

I want to thank my supporters for the most-supported RfA in English Wikipedia history, the 11th time ever outside of ArbCom elections that 300+ EnWikipedians have gotten together and agreed on something. I am so immensely grateful for the time and emotional energy you all put into supporting me.

I take this outcome as, at once, a vindication that expressing the opinion I expressed is not incompatible with adminship, and, per 28bytes, a rejection of any suggestion that such an opinion should ever become policy—not that I've ever suggested it should.

Y'all better prepare yourselves for a whole bunch of... me being a pretty fucking boring admin. I am entirely happy to go back to doing what I had been doing for 11 months before this RfA: Not expressing divisive political opinions on-wiki. For those of you with a love for drama, here are some divisive non-political opinions to argue about:

Gonna go watch for dolphins some more. Thank you to everyone. Back in a day or several. <3 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing that you prefer Pepsi to Coke, I rescind my support. I demand this go back to cratchat to reassess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a certified cat lover, I'm going to say - let's agree to disagree. Personally, I think a pint of Curious Brewing IPA is better than Pepsi and Coke, but that's just me. Oh, and brown sauce goes great in a stir-fry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a cat lover as well, but they're not pets, they're essentially broody, alcoholic roommates. They wander around, sometimes they decide they need to get right in your face to tell you how much they love you... man... and then you do the wrong thing and they fly off the handle. They also leave piles of puke around. Reminds me of my living in my first apartment.

Also, isn't the whole IPA thing done yet? When can we go back to real beers without needlessly excessive hopping. I'd rather drink a nice stout or porter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That you left RC Cola out of the equation tells me you're woefully inexperienced with flyover country. The beachy smile and the tattoo tell me we made the right choice. I'm so tickled we have you on the team. Now go forth and block someone. Plenty of work to do. Get the sand out of your keyboard and get to work. BusterD (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin. you would totally be justified to kick these two off your talk page after such foul language, BusterD excluded. Ritchie is a known problem, though. You didn't get the asparagus did you? (inside joke) --ARoseWolf 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie is the true caramel colored beverage of choice for the real wiki-aristocracy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get Moxie in Chicagoland (that I can find). I couldn't find it in NYC, but could at a little market in Putnam County. A long way to drive for something that's not even in a glass bottle anymore. BusterD (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't want it hard enough. I had some pals from England over to my neck of the woods for my wedding, and they were very impressed with Moxie. They said it was the first soda they had that didn't just taste like sugar. They expressed mild disappointment that there's no way to get it in the land of Queens and Kelpies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just my luck right now... Wanted to do one easy admin thing. AIV? One case there is complicated. U1/G7? Involved w/r/t the only entry. G6? Empty. G5? Only tagging there was out of order. That last one at least gave me occasion to use {{admin note}}, so, that's something. And of course I've pressed the "edit source" button on Main Page, stared at that for a long moment, and then freaked out and closed the tab.

I've never had Moxie. Been at one restaurant in Salem, Massachusetts, that served it, but they also served egg creams, and I don't think I've ever in my life said no to an egg cream. Still, in terms of "soda that d[oes]n't just taste like sugar", I can't imagine it could surpass a nice authentic craft root beer. I root-beer-evangelized TheresNoTime a bit when she was here. Just, none of that Barq's stuff. Ewww.

Okay, actually off to my head-clearing. Not all fun and dolphins. Gotta go pick up my new glasses from the shop. Pink frames! To finally match my signature. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(it wasn't good iirc) — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that you don't like barq's is undoubtedly the opinion I take the most issue with. Although I'm a hardcore Dr Pepper stan myself, complete with the (correct) omission of the fullstop. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Now go forth and block someone.  Done. A sock of a[n already-blocked] supporter, no less. Hopefully off to a better start than my infamously bad first block on Wikidata (a completely unneeded 10-minute block of d:User:Dexbot... Which has since gone on to delete redirects to my userpage twice. Coincidence, I ask‽). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got you beat. I actually had to immediately unblock my first block because I had incorrectly read edit summary times between warning and blocking. I felt like such a noob (with sixteen years of service). BusterD (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see I've been downgraded from "great" just a few days ago. (quiet sob, hope no one sees) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said that "great" would be a boneheaded take, but "good" is a divisive one, so that's not inconsistent. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I'd say that seems like wikialwyering, but you can block me now, so nevermind. Looks like the only record I was able to hold on to is most opposes in a successful RFA. By the skin of my teeth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, by their own admission, that Floq was a "meh" admin. It even says so on their talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Tamzin, make Floquenbeam "great" again! Perfect4th (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're dang right about the DH, Sucker Punch, and the spelling of "lede". Congratulations, Tamzin! — GhostRiver 23:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Minecraft Bee is Trans" I think its funny that Headbomb's Reliability Script detects that link as an unreliable source. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How? Please don't block me Renerpho (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club of those who survived a harrowing RfA! You'll emerge stronger than if you had unanimous approval but it's not a club that many editors want to join, no, membership is thrust upon you. You might be surprised if you looked back through past RfAs over the years at how close the votes were for some admins who are now respected and appreciated. My only advice to you is

• a) never be afraid of asking for a second opinion from an admin who works in the area you have wandered into...unless it's a vandal running amok, it's better to not act too quickly and come to the right solution,
• b) remember the kernel of the Opposes, the questions some folks had about your ability to be a good administrator but forget who said what. Occasionally, when I've gone back to my RfA and saw editors and admins who had no confidence in me and I've been surprised because they are people with whom I now have a good working relationship. I'm sure some of the words stung but it's best to move forward and be focused on learning how to use the tools. Let your future work show how some misgivings were exaggerated.

That's it! Congratulations and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was very good overall. Also congratulations and best of luck. GAB^gab 03:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience, Tamzin. You conducted yourself with aplomb through a stressful process, and I look forward to you continuing to be a net positive in our community. Happy editing! bibliomaniac15 03:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, yes, obviously, dogs are better pets. And I am clearly far too cool to have a clue about the three pop-culture judgements. But... the pepsi error - no, this was concealed information by a rouge admin. We've Been Tricked, We've Been Backstabbed and We've Been Quite Possibly, Bamboozled Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know if you like tea. I can't remember the last time I had a coke or pepsi product. --ARoseWolf 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! That was quite an RfA, but you made it through! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey. I know I'm a bit late, but I just wanted to say, congrats. I've seen you a lot around the wiki, and certainly would have voted for you if I could. Have a great day. :) 98.179.127.59 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Belated congrats from me as well. Your talk page is much more entertaining than that RfA was! Have enjoyed reading your various sub-pages as well. The project - and the community - are the better for your presence. Funcrunch (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't usually think highly of people's pet RfA questions, but after seeing Drinking orange juice right after brushing your teeth is fine, I think I'll have to do the same. I feel like that's the sort of utterly disqualifying opinion people should know up front. Congrats on making it through with a sense of humor intact. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

feels like a mistake. or.... a rouge admin!!!!! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back. Rookie. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Floquenbeam: Ha, you did this like a second before I was going to. Funny enough, this isn't even fucking up with admin tools. It's a mistake I could have made in the past as a pagemover, and managed to avoid last time I moved my userpage... I knew there was another box I needed to uncheck. (Cleaning this up, OTOH, is an admin-needed task, so way to go, denying me that. :P ) But yes, thank you to you and leeky for pointing this out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you didn't block yourself, like I did when I was a rookie :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, only times I've ever done that it's been on purpose. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Pepsi-enjoyer mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you may still be mad at me (feel free to remove), I just wanted to congratulate you on receiving the mop even though I couldn't make up my mind. If I could, I would go back to support. I am sure you will do a great job as an administrator as you showed no signs of poor judgment in the last 10 months anywhere. You did not deserve any of the abuse you received from the more vicious opposers. Again, congratulations. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: I'm not mad at you, and have never been mad at you. Thank you for this. A word on indecision, though: My whole point in all this has been that it's important to really believe in what you believe in. Sometimes that means settling on a position that you wish you didn't have to settle on—like giving a deeply unpopular answer to a question because you believe strongly in that answer and believe strongly in telling the truth. Or like staying on one side, be that support or oppose, even if doing so hurts. I hope that makes sense, and hope it isn't an unwelcome thought. Either way, I hope you know I appreciate your work here, and again, I haven't been mad at you at any point throughout this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you come and give your opinion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congratulations! Kadı Message 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removed "deletion tag" from my draft?

I already answered all your questions.

May I get a reason for declining my request? What is bad faith in it? I am the owner.

Draft link: [2]

Also, if you forget, I left a question for you on my talk page. Please answer it. Don't ignore it further. It is your responsibility.

Bobe8q8661 (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobe8q8661: I was just going to post on your talk page about this. I restored your draft because, based on what you've said about yourself and TriMain182681 (talk · contribs), I believe that you requested deletion of the draft to allow TriMain to resubmit a substantially identical page without the record of a previous AfC decline and copyright violation removal. That would constitute a "bad faith" deletion request, and is thus ineligible for G7 speedy deletion. I've redirected TriMain's draft there; he's welcome to work on improving the draft you started. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk to the question you asked there. Please don't edit comments after they've been replied to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't edit "your" comment or reply. I had only edited my "own" comment. (See page history)

Now, may I ask you for help? I need to delete my draft. Please delete it for myself as I am the owner of it. That will be a great favor by you to me. Bobe8q8661 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you edited your comment, after I had replied to it. You should not do this. As to deleting the draft, I have already replied on your talk page about this. Let's keep discussion there. Also, thank you for signing your posts, but you still need to indent them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’d like to take you up on your offer to discuss how to properly handle edits with you.

I recently said in a reply to Deepfriedokra that I don’t understand how I could have handled the situation better, and I still don’t. How can I avoid edit warring with someone who keeps putting information that I know is wrong and possibly harmful back on the page, ignoring what others have told them about the need to discuss it first?

I’m doing my absolute best here. Just trying to make sure that those who rely on Wikipedia are properly informed and not misled. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VictimOfEntropy: The best way to not edit war is... to not edit war. Sometimes you just have to accept that the article is going to be wrong for a little while while things shake out... or for a longer while because your view turns out to be the minority view. I get it. I have been on the receiving end of plenty of reverts, and it is in-​fucking-furiating when I'm right and the other person is wrong and they won't see it. But... I remind myself that there's no point in reverting if I know I'm going to get reverted in turn. In fact, that's how I define edit warring: reverting when you know you'll be reverted back. Instead what I remind myself is that if I'm as right as I think I am, other people will agree with me. I'll make my case at the appropriate venue, and people will see my logic, and the article will turn out the way I wanted. And if they don't, then oh well, there's nothing I can do. To pick one example, the article James Barry (surgeon) doesn't use the pronouns for him that, in my opinion, it obviously should as a matter of guidelines. But... I made that case, and couldn't get a consensus for it, so the (in my opinion) error persists. And... Oh well. I suck it up, and focus on other articles, because for every minute I'm arguing about one article, that's a minute I could be spending on improving another article.

I hope that makes sense. Maybe not the advice you were looking for. You've caught me right before my bedtime (as evidenced by the ellipses every other sentence and probably a few typos I've missed). If you want a version of this that's a bit more lucid, see rules 2 and 3 at User:Tamzin#Five rules I try to follow. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: No, I understand what you’re saying. It may be disappointing, but I understand that it’s good advice in general. But I feel like this particular instance is different because the wrong thing is something that someone with an urgent need to know the right information might come to Wikipedia and find instead. I said in my reply to Deepfriedokra (which might never be seen, because I still don’t know how to reply to people correctly) what I was afraid might happen if I failed to get the article right. Here’s the comment I wrote:

@Deepfriedokra: I don’t understand how I could have handled the situation any better than I did. Jamberpilot repeatedly edited the page so that it said abortion was illegal in Ohio at a point which is approximately 6 weeks LMP despite the fact that it is currently legal and available up to 22 weeks LMP in that state. That is a horrible way to misinform people, and it could have horrible consequences. Drmies undid Jamberpilot’s edits and told him to discuss it on Talk, but he just left a message on the Talk page and then immediately restored his false information on the article, and even lied in his edit claiming that it had been discussed when it hadn’t. Misinforming people has real consequences, like what we’re seeing in the real world, and Jamberpilot just repeatedly refuses to accept facts or have discussions before making these edits. People rely on this site to teach them about the world, and there’s a lot that needs to be done better. How can I let false and misleading information remain on a page just because the person who put it there is very persistent and refuses to discuss it? What if a woman in Ohio who didn’t realize she was pregnant until she was 8, 12, or 16 weeks along came to Wikipedia to learn if she could get an abortion, and cried in despair because she saw the page after Jamberpilot put that false information on it and before Drmies or I could fix it? What else could happen?

Anyway, thank you, Tamzin, and don’t let me keep you from sleep, although this whole thing has kept me from sleep, along with a crazy thunderstorm that seemed to have perfect timing. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to seeing you there. Always looking for new users to click expire on the tickets from my "girlfriend." You'll no 'em when you see'em. laughs, then sobs --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

helo yes i am girlfriend of wikipedia administrator man mr. cierekim pls give me account^[Humour] casualdejekyll 14:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Fair One, thou art not she. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That "girlfriend" and "she" almost sounds like it should be plural to me, @Deepfriedokra. --ARoseWolf 19:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

giggles abashedly --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Last night (U.S. time, at least), you kindly interjected when an editor was engaging in some rather overly-enthusiastic bolding and responded with the relevant information on how discussions on Wikipedia are conducted. I appreciate that! Also, besides being a newish admin, I noticed you're a present trainee on the Sockpuppet busters. If you find time, please take a look into this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista. I can't tell if its stuck in limbo or if this is the norm for investigations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tamzin,

I restored the edit history to this talk page since the comments involved questioning whether or not an article on this subject should exist or be deleted. When you move a draft or article on to a page that was a redirect, it will delete the previous page history. You might check on this and restore the edit history if you believe it is relevant to the current article.

I posted an additional comment in the discussion we were having on my talk page yesterday. Since the editor has been blocked, it's really a moot question now but since I didn't ping you, I thought I'd let you know. Hope you are having a good day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. :) I'd restored the old versions of the article, but wasn't sure if I should do the same for the talk too. Good to know, and I've reassembled the past threads on the page now. And yes, I saw your post on your talk. I'd already taken both editors to SPI by then, and the CU came back technically indistinguishable, so after some further review of their behavior I indeffed both (plus an apparent sleeper). Wasn't planning to jump right into SPI blocks just yet, but that one sort of landed in my lap. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm a bit late but congrats on becoming an admin. While I Did change my vote from full support to neutral leaning support, I felt that as long as you didn't let your political stance influence your decisions that you would make a great admin, and you probably will do exactly that. So again congrats. Hey, now that you're an admin you don't need someone else to block the socks you find and you can do the blocking yourself And now I can bother you whenever I need someone to take a look at an SPI for me.^[Joke] ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamzin! Just wanted to let you know I reverted this ridiculous edit from your talk page. I don't typically like messing with others' talk pages but felt it necessary here... Congratulations on your new adminship! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 18:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I have revision deleted that threat. Congratulations! You conducted yourself very well under pressure. I am sure that you will be a very good administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you. One of the more interesting weeks of my life. Glad to be out of it, and on to doing boring mop work. Already had one troll suggest that I'm a Trump supporter for enforcing WP:BLPABUSE, which I'll take as a sign I'm doing it right. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that person again. All really one-note. I guess I should at least be grateful they got my pronouns right. Thanks for reverting. I'll go have a chat with T&S. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rant by that troll was really bizarre, and your block is 100% correct. I think that goes without saying. Anyway, despite my opposition for a very narrow reason, I would like to put that behind us and have a cooperative relationship going forward. I hope that you feel the same way. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. When they accuse you of being exactly the opposite in real life of who you really are, you are definitely doing right. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Absolutely. I've been in a similar situation: I narrowly opposed theleekycauldron's RfA and then reached out to them. They have been incredibly kind to me, and indeed have become someone I'd consider a good friend. I hope to follow the example they've set, with you and anyone else. You're one of the admins I most respect, and I look forward to working alongside you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

everyone's better for some graceful reconciliation after an RfA! and I got a good friend, too :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not rescind a word

of what I've said

for the vultures overhead –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really admire the lack of editing you've done on the page of your father - I apologize if I speak of him in a way I have no right to. I have considered creating a page for my father, but I'm the only one who really knows him, of course leading to WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:N difficulties. Reminds me of all the people on WP:WWA. Lucksash (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on adminship, little user. (Bishzilla was once an admin.) But why no animated gifs? Bishzilla has access to some very fine animated gifs such as this and this, for posting on pages of favoured little users. [Pointedly:] Usually evoke pleasure and admiration. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 11:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know this user's exact reason, but generally people who ask for non-autoplay media are doing so because some types of media can trigger photosensitivity or sensory issues (i.e. migraines, seizures, overstimulation, etc.); even if, say, a particular gif or autoplayed media isn't a problem for a particular person, if it autoplays they don't get a choice in the matter. People tend to ask that non-autoplay media not be posted either because they personally experience these things or want to make things less of a mine field for people who do. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had not thought of that, but yes. Though Bish's don't trigger me --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O towering ex-admin: It's a mix of what Purple said and my frustration with MW's lack of a way to pause gifs. If I'm spacing out while staring at a screen, and there's an autoplaying gif on it, I'll get sucked in like a moth to a flame. Not a medical thing per se, although I'm sure it's related to my neurodivergence more generally, same reason I don't do great in loud rooms. (Hmm, I wonder if there's enough RS for an article on high-fidelity earplugs that wouldn't just be an ad. Super-cool stuff.)

Elsewhere on the 'pedia, just gotta deal with it, but I like my usertalk to be a calming space for me any anyone else who reacts negatively to autoplaying media, whether that's the subset of such media that can cause super-scary consequences, or the broader issue of them just being unpleasant.

I do like your 'zilla gifs, though. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Pleased, Bishzilla towers some more, her head reaching right into the clouds and dispersing them with her radioactive breath.] Excuse is acceptable, O little new admin. Welcome relax occasionally in calming space of Bishzilla's pocket! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 21:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

As one who is also very distracted and annoyed by autoplaying media, I see and appreciate you. Funcrunch (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have another reason. Some devices run super-slow with normal images, if they are large enough. Nevermind animations! Even with a teensy-tiny GIF, I suffer 2 frames-per-second. ); And with enough, how the fuck am I going to read the rest of a page!? My device crashes if only 3 medium-large ones are shown. I've only tested those though. Not the small ones. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin-Coffee

Hi, congratulations for becoming an admin; I know how important it becomes for some people to have admin like tools on any wiki, as I happen to be an eliminator at a different wiki. Coffee has got different variants, and I plan to launch a new one. It is called, "The Admin-Coffee", and you are gifted with this. Looking forward working with you on anti-spam... Love! ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: Thank you for this. :) I believe I toasted to your Noon Chai offer with some sickeningly sweet "chai" from Dunkin'. I'll toast to your coffee with some more pleasantly over-sweet mango Pepsi (which I only recently even learned is a thing). I look forward to working with you as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, friends. I intentionally didn't say much in the immediate aftermath of my RfA because I wanted a bit of time to clear my head (and quietly reacquaint myself with the tools in the meantime). I've had a lot to think about, and a lot to say, and I've written it down at User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief.

The most exciting thing about publishing this is that I can stop thinking about this RfA and continue full steam ahead deleting (and keeping) redirects, blocking (and not blocking) suspected sockpuppets, and generally using my expanded toolset to make the community better.

For those who do have any lingering questions or concerns about anything that came up at the RfA, do please feel free to reach out, on this talkpage or by email.

A bit belatedly, I would like to thank:

• My mother, for schlepping 16 hours to come keep me company as things got bad
• My father (Z''L), for teaching me to stand up for what I believe in
• My found family—BiomatrixBackup and her fiancée, who is too cool for Wikipedia—for letting me vent for hours
• Drmies and BDD, for being the two best nominators a !​gal could ask for
• TheresNoTime, for pushing me to run, and so many other things
• Firefly, my would-be flightmate if not for some slowness on my part, a faithful ally before, during, and after this RfA
• Tavix, Ritchie333, Trialpears, RoySmith, Vanamonde93, and one admin I spoke to only by email, for nomination offers I was forced to decline due only to a surplus of options. Maybe next time, y'all! (Joke. Please no.)
• Vami IV, for providing me with the anthem for this slow-motion trainwreck, "Fear Is Not My Guide"
• theleekycauldron, both honorary younger enby sibling and honorary Jewish mother
• Floquenbeam (even though he jynxed everything), FeydHuxtable, Celestina007, casualdejekyll, Ixtal, Elli, Endwise, BusterD (also an honorary Jewish mother), zzuuzz, ezlev, Paradise Chronicle, Zippybonzo, ARoseWolf, WereSpielChequers, ScottishFinnishRadish, Doug Weller, Paine Ellsworth, Dreamy Jazz, Mythdon, I dream of horses, Serial Number 54129, and everyone else who reached out to me, publicly and privately, during the RfA, especially those who talked me out of withdrawing
• Everyone who's congratulated me since the RfA passed, whom I'd name but it would exceed the ping limit
• Each and every one of my supporters. In particular:
  • Nableezy, for getting it
  • MastCell, also for getting it, and for in doing so giving me the only good laugh I had all week
• Every oppose and neutral that gave me constructive material to work with. There were many, and I will keep them in mind.
• The entire English Wikipedia bureaucrat team, for their careful reading of consensus. At first I was grumpy when it went to a 'crat chat, but now I can say that 9 bureaucrats agreed that there was consensus. How many admins can say that?
  • In particular, Primefac, for consistently making sense of the chaos during the RfA
• Every editor who makes this encyclopedia great
• And of course, the cetaceans who swim in the waters off Cape May

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else hear this playing in the background while reading? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you took a little time to process everything. The comment related to your political status (or something) made me feel that if you could show that you won't let politics influence your decisions then you would be a good admin. Also glad to see that you've found the cetaceans you've needed ^[Humor]. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing, and a belated congratulations! DanCherek (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this was very enlightening. And congratulations on becoming an admin! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. casualdejekyll 21:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fane Lozman took Riviera Beach to the US Supreme Court once in 2013 for seizing his floating home and again in 2018 for arresting him, and won both times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fane Lozman took Riviera Beach to the US Supreme Court once in 2013 for seizing his floating home and again in 2018 for arresting him, and won both times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the revdels. I didn't get a chance to see exactly who added what. They're might be some BLP notices worth handing out. I appreciate the quick response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamzin! I noticed that a user (who is now blocked for being WP:NOTHERE) triggered a filter with the description "Band Vandalism". I'm not really curious as to the specifics of the filter itself, but as to what "Band Vandalism" even means. I originally thought it would have something to do with vandalism on pages relating to bands but that's clearly not the case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf I just wanted to note that what I have figured out from looking at the details of the edit filter is that the words "follow me" and some others are disallowed by the filter. See the following text from one of their edits.

"I am a philosopher. The UN is harassing me because of my new philosophy. They get people to follow me in the street and track me online to suppress the new philosophy." I believe that it is just checking for certain words and marking them if it finds them in an edit.

Special:AbuseLog/32578216

Special:AbuseFilter/1118 SkyTheWolf (Talk) 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf Band Vandalism seems to just be the term they used to classify it. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 16:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. So basically trying to get people to jump on the bandwagon. I think in this case it would technically be a false positive (since "follow me" isn't being used in the sense like "Follow me to the promised land!") but maybe it isn't. But that makes a lot of sense now. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more like "follow me on Twitter" promotional spam, I'm guessing. Funcrunch (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by Enterprisey in response to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive329 § Massive One Direction related vandalism. Not sure if it's still needed. The "follow me on Twitface" filter is 1043 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew One Direction was popular enough that people did vandalism on Wikipedia related to it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really doesn't seem useful anymore, yeah. I'll disable it. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you've joined the crew in this area. Good to have another set of eyes and a pair of hands (and a good brain, I might say). As an aside, what you had to go through recently looked somewhat taxing; good that you kept your composure! Schwede66 21:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Well when Gerda tells me to watchlist a page, I do. :D Glad to help out. I'm sure within a year or 20 I'll no longer be terrified every time I see one of the "THIS IS ON THE MAIN PAGE RIGHT NOW" editnotices. And thank you. It was certainly a valuable learning experience. User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief is set to run in The Signpost this month, my effort to document what I learned; guess we'll see how a broader audience takes it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I agree with the "good brain" evaluation ;) - I've seen minor problems linger in that corner, - good to now about more eyes on the scene. Most often, I report my own mistakes, and then found it strange when nothing happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm gonna be criticized for this, but someone has to say it and I got used to being criticized for saying these type of things.

I know it's none of my business but I've seen that you have names of several journalists killed while doing their duty on your user page. I'm just wondering why you didn't add the name of the Palestinian journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot dead by IDF while she was covering Israeli military raid on the Jenin refugee camp. Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Super ninja2: The journalists listed were all killed while covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a topic I've written extensively about. They are not the only journalists killed in the line of duty in recent months, but they are the ones I've chosen to write about, and thus the ones I list. I hope that answers your question. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does answer it. I think the victims of the Russian invasion of Ukraine are more important. Thank you for clarifying. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement [3]. Copied from [4]. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Pinsky: Revdelled. And older stuff from that account revdelled. And account indeffed for spamming (very intermittently, but with no constructive edits in between). Thanks for pointing me that way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you. Regards. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I understand your redaction. I just wanted to point out this article doesn't even have his name right, which should be a basic fact for an encylopedic article. The link is a public record that anyone can access. But anyway, sorry. Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using wikisource and sps for such a controversial claims [5]. Likely pov pushing. I cleaned it. Would you mind having a look? Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Pinsky: From an administrative perspective, it looks like things worked as intended here: The IP removed for an inaccurate reason (unsourced), Theagentofblight reverted due to that inaccuracy, and you re-removed based on a modified reason (poorly sourced). At a glance, the two Green papers and the Mauss paper look reliable enough for our purposes, but there's definitely too much sourced directly to Mormon scripture in there. @Theleekycauldron and Ezlev: y'all've both written on Jewish–Christian relations before. Thoughts? And @PerryPerryD: I recall a standing offer from you to discuss LDS theology. Do you have any ideas on how to make that section better? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I agree with you that the non-primary sources appear reliable and that the content sourced directly to the Book of Mormon is undesirable – the paraphrasing is fine, but how do we know it's due for inclusion without cited mention in RSes? It does look like Mauss and the Greens (also the name of a band I'm starting /j) could form the basis for the subsection on their own, for now, and I know there's more literature on the subject that could be found and added. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for requesting my assistance, However I must inform you that as a simple Priest, I am not qualified to state my opinion on this material, Nor do i have any good contacts for verification at this time. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 02:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been involved in the 2022 Buffalo shooting page. I would appreciate it if you and your talk page watchers could keep an eye on Conklin, New York and Tops Friendly Markets. Page protection won't help. Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Malcolmxl5 PC-protected the former. Guess we'll see if that holds or if semi is needed. As to the latter, I've started a discussion on the talkpage so y'all can stop edit-warring. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a similar protection request for the Tops Friendly Markets page, as its very similar material being added to both articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you caught the very reasonable discussion I had with one of the editors. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping keep the peace cowgirl, as best one can under the circumstances. BusterD (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context, "cowgirl" makes me think of "2nd Amendment" by the all-women mariachi band Flor de Toloache. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Polycarpa aurata: I don't think that antagonizing them like that is helpful. They're clearly participating in good faith, and the "returning after 4 years" part kind of explains the "maybe not 100% in touch with current norms" part. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of that was antagonistic? I was genuinely trying to find out why this was important to them so we could discuss it. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Polycarpa aurata: I think that Why? Help me understand why this is important to you. comes off as questioning the other editor's motives and implying that they may be less than wholesome. And that seems to be how they've taken it, too. Usually, it's not necessary to ask someone why they're making a set of edits, since we should assume that the answer is "to improve the encyclopedia". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was hopeful that they and I could have an actual discussion as thinking and feeling persons so we could understand each other. I am not longer hopeful. I imagine something like this happens every time there is a mass shooting, especially when they are associated with some form of extremism. I think it would be useful to write up some kind of document that deals with the common issues, since mass shootings in the US show no signs of stopping. I am going to walk away from this terrible subject, but I will add this episode to the to my box of "things I have learned about Wikipedia". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]