https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Government_frontbench

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointments-november-2023

Can you check?

TShape12 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TShape12. It looks good; I've added Aaron Bell and fixed a formatting error. The Guardian has reported that the reshuffle doesn't seem complete yet (see 10:25 and 10:43 GMT), so perhaps there'll be more changes later. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup added new Lords see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointments-november-2023 TShape12 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you undelete Template:Editnotices/Page/Deleted to make way for page move? G8 "excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia", and I believe the editnotice is useful. Of course, I am open to any feedback if what I wrote in the editnotice is inaccurate. SilverLocust 💬 00:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will, SilverLocust, but because the lead of WP:CSD allows the creator of a page to remove G8 tags, implying that they should be refunded at their request. I think that the broad exclusion of "any page that is useful to Wikipedia" is nebulous and I view the current list of examples to be pretty exhaustive. Deleted to make way for page move is unsalted, so the page was eligible for deletion under G8. Given the discussion at RfPP that led to its deletion, this is to let you know, NmWTfs85lXusaybq. For what it's worth, SilverLocust, I think that the editnotice is accurate, though a similar solution to what is used at Draft:Move may work too (though that would of course prevent people moving the page there). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think those express the same point: (1) that anyone (including the creator) can object and remove the G8, and (2) that it is enough for G8 that someone believes that it is "useful to Wikipedia". See, e.g., Thryduulf's comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Exception to rule G8.

On your Draft:Move suggestion, I'm not sure where Deleted to make way for page move would redirect. (WP:DELV? WP:RMCI#Edit history of destination page?) Plus redirects from main space to project space are controversial.

Thanks, SilverLocust 💬 02:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the first point, which is why I restored it, but I don't on the second. The relevant G8 point covering this deletion ("Unused editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages") seems to have been written specifically to include this situation. From an editorial view, given that Deleted to make way for page move has only been used twice, I think that the necessity to have an editnotice is debatable. I'm not sure on the Draft:Move possibilities; it was just an idea I was floating. Anyways, thanks for the message . Sdrqaz (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sdrqaz, Can you added Extended confirmed protection on my User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice ; per my humble request in userspace, This most important for me. I don't need more edit on this editnotice.If you feel confortable about that.Thnx  :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aviram7. Can I ask why? I created my talk page's editnotice two-and-a-half years ago and nobody else has edited it since; I think it is unlikely that someone else will change your editnotice too. If it's purely pre-emptive, then the policy on user page protections states that it should not be done. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sdrqaz, there is an article named Climate Change in South Sudan that you deleted, there was no time for to explain what really happened. I tried to explain but all in vine. Here is my side of the story That day I woke up and Planned to write an article about Climate change in South Sudan, but at first, I confused Sudan and South Sudan and added edits supposed to be for Climate Change in South Sudan on the Climate change in Sudan article so I had to revert my changes. A user called FuzzyMagma got the content I had put in that article and created a separate article meanwhile I had the Climate change in South Sudan article in my Sandbox so after working on my article, I published it to the main space and was just deleted, I understand the role but such an article takes a lot of efforts to write so instead of deleting it, i would have been asked to move the content to the article the other user had created. So my request is please if i could have access to the article I had written then i can move that content. I have written Several aricles in that line like Climate change in Uganda, Climate change in Zimbabwe, Climate change in Namibia. hope my request can granted. Thank you advance. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Micheal. I deleted that article because while you had content there, you removed it all (part of what you had written can be found here). The article with your work in it was actually deleted by Sarahj2107. Sarah, would you be willing to restore those revisions (the ones up to and including 17:59, 8 November 2023) for Micheal, either in the mainspace or in their userspace? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Micheal, I have undeleted the article for you and moved it to User:Micheal Kaluba/sandbox/Climate change in South Sudan. I have had to remove some of the content as it's a copyright violation, please do not add this back in. Also, as there is now an article on Climate change in South Sudan you can use the content in you're userspace to add to it but please don't move your draft back to mainspace as it will create a duplicate article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Sdrqaz Micheal Kaluba (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to add unsourced gossip about middle schoolers. Do not add it like you did at Dubuque Community School District. ✶Mitch199811✶ 17:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally got the wrong user. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine . Thanks for removing that information. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You once deleted an article I wrote. You cited that the individual may not be well known, and thus does not deserve a Wikipedia page.

Kindly note that, big reputable blogs rarely ever publish detailed reports about some certain individuals. We have to make do of what little references we can get hands on.

Kindly advice on the best way I can go about this so subsequent articles I write can be published successfully.

Thank you for your time and intellect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldwonder (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harold. I deleted John Ida Paul because the article did not say why he was important. While the article spoke about his education and personal life, as well as his professional career, it did not mention why he is different to the millions of engineers we have in the world. I think that something to remember is that articles on the English Wikipedia need to be notable, which generally means having independent reliable sources cover them in detail.

You're absolutely right that some things simply don't get as much attention than others. Wikipedia, unfortunately, mostly reflects the biases of the world around it – it relies on other sources having covered topics before it covers them. The project, however, tries to work against these biases by having subject-specific notability guidelines, such as the one for academics and professors. In the future, you may prefer to use the Articles for Creation process, as they have many editors who can review drafts and give you advice on what can be improved. If they think that the subject has a good chance of being notable, they may publish the draft for you. I hope that this helps. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

story · music

Thank you for standing to become arbitrator! My story today is Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his, - the composer, born OTD 110 years ago, didn't want it shorter (but the publisher), - more here. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to serve, Gerda . Nice, peaceful photos there – seems like you didn't encounter the "well-known and at times riotous nightclub-based nightlife". Good to see that you got it on the Main Page in time. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Writing about a Britten composition for his birthday has become a tradition ;) - Thank you for a reply to my cand question. I may discuss it after tomorrow's concert when we will sing the Mozart and listen to Pärt's urgent call for peace played by the strings, - I'm not in the mood before ;) - I mentioned Pärt for a reason, could have been Beethoven as well, in other words: I believe it's time for a fresh look, as we were told 10 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concert was good, User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear that, Gerda. I'm intrigued by the glass harp you photographed – I've seen people making sounds from glasses, but never as a whole instrument with various pitches – as well as that article by Brian (I hadn't seen it before). Blue hour really is something too: strangely majestic yet mysterious ... I admire writing and singing in tribute, as it adds so much meaning to what we do. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was recently intrigued by an artist playing on pitched flower pots (and plenty of other recycled material), with a symphony orchestra. - Brian came up with a compromise for his featured article right after the first infoboxes case, on my talk. - Today I remember my other hero, Jerome Kohl who was one of the first people I met on Wikipedia, helping me to understand that we should not write what a source says when the source is wrong (see Talk:Siegfried Palm#Palm and Stockhausen in 2009. He would revert infoboxes (for people, while adding them for compositions), but for years we had good conversations about other matters, including life and death (linked there: User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 6#In Freundschaft). That would be be the best way towards peace: accepting each other as people, not warriors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. Having watched some of her work thanks to you, it's really great what can be achieved with such a variety of household items: a good example of upcycling. I do enjoy those walks too . Sdrqaz (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Heard another great concert, click on music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very solid answer. We should speak further about the shadow docket and in-chambers opinions, but it can wait a few days until you're finished answering election questions. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to, Brad – your question was probably the most enjoyable one. It would be remiss for me if I didn't mention that SilverLocust was responsible for the information on in-chambers opinions, though . Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's keep him in the loop as well. Incidentally, one of you may have seen some of my off-wiki work on this subject, such as my writings here (I'm Ira Matetsky). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I certainly read some of those articles (and relied on the journal's compilation of opinions) when I added a list to the in-chambers opinion article in May (which links to JICP in note b). (Hopefully someone has found that list helpful. Alas, page-view statistics don't show a very large Wikipedia readership for ICOs or similar inside-baseball SCOTUS stuff like DIGs and GVRs — or even more newsworthy things like nationwide injunctions.) SilverLocust 💬 05:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December songs

story · music

Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on Copland's talk, - yes, regarding a soft(er) stance towards infoboxes. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to arbitration: did you check out the history of the infobox of Callas? Compare Jessye Norman, Kathleen Ferrier and Jenny Lind. Did you check out the history of Copland? Compare Max Reger, Max Beckschäfer, Colin Mawby (from today's story), and Benjamin Britten (who died OTD). What's the difference? If what you see changes your answer to my question, feel free to change, and ping me. I would like to see a way to avoid in the future hundreds of editors commenting on Mozart RfCs, just to kind of restore the infobox he had in 2006. Happy new era ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like he had a very eventful life, fighting for worthy causes. The Musée d'Orsay looks impressive from both the inside and the outside . Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pics up to 3 December (with my shadow in one of them), and a story about Beethoven in memory of his birth. When the arb who wrote the infoboxes case installed the community consensus - in 2015! - I hoped these infobox wars were over, really. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fields of snow look very peaceful – I hope that we can find peace in our work here and beyond, both this month and in the coming year. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - you said that so well! - Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to your election! - I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda! One gone a day after the other is doubly unfortunate ... The Christmas rehearsal venue's interior, especially the wall, looks impressive but cosy. A very different style to the Marienkirche, though that one is grand in its own way. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sdkb! Like the artwork, I hope that bright things are on the horizon for us in 2024 (and that outstanding issues in 2023 are resolved!). I'll continue working on my friendliness . Sdrqaz (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a really fun read, thanks for the article! Justiyaya 08:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Justiyaya! I had the idea for the article a while back, but only got around to writing it in November. Not sure that it's really new for DYK purposes, though, as it took 1.5 months to get promoted . Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 34,008 views (1,417.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdrqaz, I saw you edited my user page after another user requested it be deleted. I am not sure what authority they have to request a deletion as I was just copying my assigned mentor's user page. Thank you for your intervention as I don't know what policy I potentially violated or how to respond to a message like that. Please let me know what I should do to fix this and/or prevent this from happening again in the future.

Thank you

Jpm0000 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's nothing wrong with this at all as a user page; it's an identical template to what I've been using for years. Should we do anything about the tagger? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpm0000 and Ritchie333: As Ritchie says, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the page. As a word of caution, I think that it's worth noting that pages in your userspace don't belong to you and others are free to tag them for deletion if they wish. However, as long as you don't stray away from the guidelines, you should be fine. Ritchie, I have declined CAPTAIN RAJU's nominations with regards to U5 before (see here) and I hope that they can respond to these pings. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdrqaz, you have been elected to the arbitration committee! The results of the election are available here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Results. You will likely be contacted by the existing committee for onboarding. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Sdrqaz! Good luck with all of those email messages! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Xaosflux and Liz! A lot of things to set up and get used to . Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2024:

• Aoidh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cabayi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Firefly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sdrqaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ToBeFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Z1720 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Upon meeting the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and signing the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement, all incoming arbitrators will be subscribed to all Committee-managed email lists, assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office, and given access to the CheckUser and Oversight queues on the VRTS system.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2023:

• Enterprisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators, who have not elected to retain them, after 31 December 2023:

  CheckUser: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork

  Oversight: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Enterprisey, who has elected to be unsubscribed.
• All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Izno, who has elected to remain subscribed.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2024 Arbitration Committee

Can you please delete my userpage? I'd like my history on that userpage cleared. Sincerely, Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; done . Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdrqaz, I understand that you appropriately revoked some of my user privileges in September 2023 due to an extended period of inactivity. I have resolved the issues that initially caused my absence and am happy to return to my previous capacities as a draft page reviewer, new page patroller, etc. Could you please consider reinstating my previous privileges? Thanks a bunch! ~~~~ nearlyevil665 12:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Nearlyevil665. I notice that you've not really used your page mover permission: Apart from today, the last time you used it was in January 2022. Do you want that back as well? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response, Sdrqaz! I was more of a draft page reviewer person but if you don't mind -- yes, I'd like that one back as well. You never know when it might come in handy! nearlyevil665 04:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If, in the future, you find that you do not need it, please feel free to contact me. Welcome back again . Sdrqaz (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Just a thanks for responding to my OS reports and also verifying that they actually need OS. I am usually pretty good at identifying what needs it and what doesn't but I didn't even think to check the IP address on the one I submitted just a little while ago. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with all the Bridge Bridge / Bridgeport Bridge / Purple Hearts Bridge confusion. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sdrqaz,

Do you think Military Order of the Purple Heart Bridge is a duplicate of this article? It seems like we might need to go through the Contributions of this editor. But I defer to your judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt in @Liz: but I just redirected Military Order of the Purple Heart Bridge to Bridgeport Bridge (Ohio River), because it was an undersourced stub anyway. The editor who tried blanking and renaming it said they were trying to merge the articles anyway, so I don't think it will be controversial. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the old versions of the articles (Bridgeport, Purple Heart), I think that they're two bridges that are very close to each other, with one replacing the other after it effectively fell apart. I suppose they can be merged into each other, though I'm not sure that having the extant article at the old title is a good idea – is there actually a broader topic for these two topics? The current version looks a little strange. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridgeport article starting off with info about the Purple Hearts bridge is kind of weird in that case imo. Maybe there should be a split and cleanup on both to better differentiate between them? BuySomeApples (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but a reason why the merge was attempted in the first place was due to its brevity. Presumably splitting again will not satisfy That guy who plays games' concerns. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only reason I did that was because the 1998 bridge’s article was stubbed, and the only notable thing about it is that it served as a replacement to the more notable bridge that was left to decay for 100 years(nearly 200 in the rock pier’s case). That guy who plays games (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...while on the one hand, I do see what you are getting at, I actually didn't so much intend it as a related-subject link, but rather due to the confusion possible as a result of the colloquial use of "girls" for "young adult women", which seemed relevant since the rank-and-file of soldiers tend to be young adults. With that consideration in mind, does your opinion on whether the hatnote should stay or go remain the same? I'm personally uncertain, so I'd quite appreciate your opinion. AddWittyNameHere 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I think that given Female soldiers redirects to Women in the military, a hatnote there would make a lot of sense. That being said, with your rationale I think that if you wanted to restore the hatnote at Girl soldiers, I wouldn't object: I hadn't thought of that reasoning. Thanks for the message. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! Any objections if I do both, that is, restore the hatnote on girl soldiers while also adding a "female soldiers redirects here"-style hatnote at Women in the military? I assume not, but never hurts to verify instead of assume, and all that. AddWittyNameHere 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it . Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heavily involved, and so not objective, so I'd like a second opinion regarding whether this edit (and summary) is appropriate? A few of the same editors other recent contributions to that discussion haven't been great (I explicitly called them out about personal attacks a day or so ago) and got brushed off. The latest comment feels even less collegiate to my mind. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Thryduulf: a lot of things going on. I see that WhatamIdoing has removed the comment since your question.

AndyTheGrump, I don't think that we've interacted before and I'm sorry that we're not meeting in better circumstances. I know that the topic is a frustrating one, but I don't think that comments like that are very helpful to moving the discussion along. I'd also like to gently point out to both you and Thryduulf that you've both made quite a few comments in that discussion – reading it, I feel that it's clear what both of your positions on the issues are, and reiterating it may not be that useful (diminishing returns etc). However, one of the issues with my late reply is that you both haven't made comments at that discussion since 22 February, so unless specifically pinged I think that it would be a good idea to continue that streak. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless and until the community determines otherwise, I will continue to comment as I see fit on the clear and unambiguous attempts to impose an utterly bizarre and partisan interpretation of Wikipedia policies on articles concerning so-called 'micronations' through tendentious Wikilawyering, relentless badgering, and attempts to dress fantasy roleplaying as objective fact. Fortunately it appears that the community at large seems to be arriving at a consensus largely in accord with mine (and more to the point, in accord with WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc, etc...), and if that trend continues (and attempts to canvas for external support appear to remain fruitless [1]), further comment may not prove necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I could wish that you would resolve to comment in ways that will build up the community, and not merely as you see fit in the moment. (That phrase somehow makes me think of adults who are old enough to know better but still pitching fits like an over-tired toddler: It temporarily gives expression to their emotions, and of course a toddler doesn't have the maturity to understand how their emotion-driven reaction affects either themselves or anyone else in the long run.) I think we need your views on the content. I don't think we need anyone to claim that other editors are delusional. If the claim about delusion is likely to be true, the situation can be reported via e-mail to ArbCom or a trusted individual admin. If it's likely to be hyperbole, it should probably not be posted at all. In neither case does posting such a thing help the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any emails from me to ArbCom concerning this topic (which certainly aren't beyond the realm of possibility) are likely to contain more of substance - there's a fair bit of it out there. Meanwhile though, point taken, I'll try to rein in my comments, and leave readers to decide for themselves whether an analogy equating the United States (population 335 million) with Liberland (population zilch) is a rational approach to determining encyclopaedic article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ADMINACCT_demand_from_Rajeshthapaliya -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not good, they ignored you. Frankly I don't think the editor is going to be an asset. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is this?? Why is there a whole page about me?? You know I do not consent to this right?? Double r3 the rapper (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I agree. I believe they're NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 21:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 00:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I am keeping an eye on the situation, though if I am offline, help can be requested by email or by IRC (#wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect). Hopefully things won't escalate further. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]