User talk:力/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Find The Data . org

I came across a link to Findthedata.org . The original website seems defunct, I get various nasty stuff or complete page loading failure when I try to access it. A press release from 2011 says "FindTheData has launched powerful comparisons such as City Crime Statistics, Salaries by Job and Industry, Airport Facilities, Vehicle Complaints, and many more, to help you quickly and easily access the data you need.".

Archive.org has minimal coverage of the site, and nothing looks useful. I think the various references [1] are so bad they need to be expunged. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Big Brother VIP Albania for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big Brother VIP Albania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother VIP Albania until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—— A675974811 (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I was impressed...

Dear 力, a.k.a. power~enwiki,

I was very impressed by your bold removal of WP:FRINGE material here. I had complained about this problem earlier on the talk page, but I was just given a lecture in ancient mysticism.

I have been trying to maintain your edit since against one or two IPs that tried to revert it. However, today your edit was reverted by the same admin that had given me the mentioned lecture when I first complained about it. I have reverted it back with an attempt at a more clear argument, using WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:OR. This is just to alert you of what is going on there, since my attempt to ping you directly from the edit summary failed. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't FRINGE, it is DUE. My recollection is that the detailed "which angel corresponds with a demon in a book written 400 years ago and largely ignored since then" is less important than Pokemon details removed from the project 15 years ago. I won't have time to actually check the sources to comment until Tuesday or Wednesday, though. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear 力,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ryanair Flight 4978

On 23 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ryanair Flight 4978, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. BorgQueen (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello 力:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Please help to expand Draft: List of Boonie Bears episodes

Hi, You have moved the page into draft. So, please help to expand this page by adding episodes. I will also add episodes. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add copyright violating content to Wikipedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will only add episode names. And Later, I will write summary of the episode in my own language. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Reply fast KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please reply can i add episode names KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just adding the article titles isn't a copyright issue. I'm not sure your content will be considered good for Wikipedia, though. I don't plan to edit or comment on the article unless there are further copyright issues. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I will add names. Okay KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of Article Assessment after Deletion

Hello. You accepted an article I submitted to AfC, John Baugh, in March and assessed it as C-Class. The article was deleted when I was mistakenly blocked in April, and the article has since been restored, but the C-Class assessment is no longer there. Would you mind re-adding your assessment to the talk page? Thank you so much, CatCar28 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please note that I have blocked User:Ali mjr for a WP:3RR violation at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. You have also been reverting a lot there but you have stayed under 3RR and I think your reverts may fall under the BLP 3RR exemption.

If you are reverting under a 3RR exemption such as BLP it is important to put this in your edit summaries as it can be difficult to tell by the admin. A link like WP:NOT3RR#EXBLP in the edit summary can help the admin notice this. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I considered invoking a BLP exemption in the edit summary, but ultimately decided it wasn't necessary and would not have gone beyond 3RR. Rather than continue to edit-war, he chose instead to revert my talk-page comment ... I can't explain that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't count on only doing 3 reverts to avoid being blocked. A block for edit warring can happen even if 3RR is not violated. Another administrator might have blocked both of you if they were handling this, some admins can be very strict with edit warring. You have been here for 17 years without a block and it would be a real shame if it happened now. I would either claim the exemption clearly or not revert more than once. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Candidate notability

I was wondering if are interested in looking at my attempt to describe when a candidate might be notable. I am open to feedback with the hope that we can have some clarity before US campaigns begin in earnest later this fall for the 2022 elections --Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Enos733: It's at least twice as long as it can be. Any solution needs to address the gaps between "US Senate candidate in a target seat", "House of Commons candidate who has paid their deposit" and "candidate for New Hampshire State House with no real chance to win". The only way to do that is to figure out a threshold for coverage beyond "is listed on the ballot", and to figure out a way to handle that the candidates are actively cultivating press coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite likely. I'm open to suggestions, as my initial thoughts are based on examples from previous AFDs. --Enos733 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Close at Talk:Juno (mythology)

I have closed a RM discussion at Talk:Juno (mythology). I expect this may be controversial. Please discuss any concerns here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Violation of talk page guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Shem HaMephorash. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If you can't sign your comments properly and you can't phrase a neutral question for a survey, I can and will remove them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Do it again and I'll take it to ANI. It's technically vandalism and you can be blocked for it. Skyerise (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-factoring talk pages to be in line with talk-page policy is permitted. As you seem to have already replaced the "poll" with a proper RFC, I'm going to close this and move on. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please Don't Delete Ren Keyu

Wait if you delete this, you'll deny educational knowledge on this figure. I'm sure there's more to put in if you give me and others more of a chance to properly develop it as we go along.

Trump rallies

Sorry about the apparent double entry, but I had not seen the warning about the reversal when I decided to revise the part about rallies into a subsection. It was not intended as interpreted, but easy to understand.

#=== Resumption of rallies ===

On June 6, 2021, Trump resumed his campaign-style rallies with an 85-minute speech at the annual North Carolina Republican Party convention. On June 27, he held his first public rally since his January 6 rally before the riot at the Capitol.

On July 3, 2021 another public rally was held in Florida. Thousands of supporters attended, some coming from great distances. Security measures included striping the attendees of items being carried: beer, folding chairs, umbrellas, and such. The audience was ushered through the building to an open-air venue behind it and directed to bleachers as seating. The audience was thoroughly drenched in a downpour that occurred. An airplane flew a banner rally above the rally for approximately an hour that was emblazoned with "Loser-Paloosa".

References

was intended to replace what I had just posted. Again, my apologies. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for the accusation of edit-warring. Do still consider your edit reverted. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your comment at Talk:Shem HaMephorash. It's nice to know that you appreciate what I've done on the Christian and Hermetic side of things (it's even better now). Now if only Apaugasma would expand the Judaic side of things, we'll have a pretty robust article on the topic... Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

New York Emmy Awards

Hello. I would like to open a conversation with you and to ask why you did a soft redirect to the New York Emmy Awards article? While these are regional Emmys they do not deserve to be redirected to the academy's main article. There are I believe twenty three Emmy Awards pages under the regional headings. Each of these regions have their own awards shows and broadcasts. So, I do not think the article should be a redirect and the conversation was leaning more to the conclusion to leave the article the way it was created. So, lets discuss this.--Canyouhearmenow 22:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Canyouhearmenow: I was commenting on a completely different discussion than the one regarding regional Emmy awards. I've commented on this topic at the XFD page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my recent RFA

I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Information

• 力 is also the Chinese character/word for "power". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 15#The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. e^π/💬 21:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

US governors

Howdy. I went through all the US state & territorial governors articles & list articles. It seems we've got inconsistencies. Some begin with "head of state and government", some with "head of government", some with "chief executive" etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead & brought them more in sync. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk page edits

Pointing out when a article is biased and suggesting that it shouldn't is relevant to the article and a discussion related to improving it. Please accept that and stop putting notices on other peoples Talk page just because you didn't like it how they pointed out an obvious flaw in an article you are interested in. Nciiiiieedd (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nciiiiieedd: Whatever Larry Sanger said is thoroughly irrelevant. I think that if you actually look at articles and discussions, you will find that many editors agree with your take that the war is over and that the Taliban won. If you have specific changes to an article to suggest based on that, you are welcome to do so. If you simply want to whine about bias, you will be thanked and excused from participating at Wikipedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Then delete that one sentence with Larry Sanger and keep the rest that is relevant and about improving an article! Don't delete a whole edit because you don't like one sentence. Nciiiiieedd (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. First, in general, it's against policy to make substantive changes to signed comments on talk pages; it is preferable to revert them in their entirety. Second, your entire comment was a rant that was inappropriate for the talk page, or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There was no rant. Just because you don't like a fact, doesn't make it a rant. If you have a problem with a single sentence, then make a comment pointing out that it isn't neccessary, don't revert the whole Edit because of it. Nciiiiieedd (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Name confusion

My apologies if this seems a bit random, but I was looking through WP:ANI and I saw you commented on something and I was a bit confused about your username since it's a non-latin character and I don't actually know what I would refer to you as in normal conversation. Your username appears to be either a Chinese or Japanese character as well. Not saying you should change it, just a bit confused. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice symbol for your username!

Thanks for voting on a redirect for hotle -> hotel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misspelling Wizard (talk • contribs)

The aforementioned user was blocked for sockpuppetry before their excessive misspelling-based redirect creation could get them blocked. Sic transit gloria mundi. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended comment re: the short name for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

For various theological and disambiguatory reasons, it is difficult to determine a short name for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter identified by the unlikely [but in context unambiguous] acronym CJCLS). The previous two most-common short-names, the "Mormon Church" and the "LDS Church", are both discouraged by CJCLS for theological reasons. The name "LDS Church" has issues with confusion regarding other churches in the Latter Day Saint movement which are not affiliated with CJCLS.

For a variety of reasons, the CJCLS is entitled to be identified as it desires to be identified, so long as it does not cause confusion in doing so. Currently, CJCLS appear to prefer "The Church of Jesus Christ" as a short name, which is hopelessly confusing. There are lots of churches which attest to being "of Jesus Christ", and this name does not identify their differences with other sects of Christianity in any useful way, nor is the name commonly identifiable.

In my own writing, I have suggested The Church (Salt Lake City) as an alternate name for CJCLS; however, as literally no other sources appear to be using that name, it is not an option for Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style is conservative; until some new name is in common use we will likely to continue to use old names. Not even a divine proclamation can over-ride site consensus unless and until there is consensus for a replacement; we operate by common consent here. While the process may be slow, in the long run, the arc of history bends towards justice. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There was another discussion on this opened at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#This manual still does not adequately reflect changes in 2018, just so you know. ––FormalDude talk 00:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge this has been discussed multiple times. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot create a solution, we must wait for a solution to find common usage in off-wiki sources. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop

I urge you to stop making thinly veiled threats. -69.121.9.199 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't veiled at all. You are being disruptive and if you do not stop now you will be blocked by some admin. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello 力,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unclear message on my talk page.

Hello, you have left an unclear message on my talk page, could you please care to clarify? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TataofTata&oldid=1040703314

TataofTata (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Choosing not to bother to respond to the above is obviously your prerogative, but I believe it to be a bit rude. Now when you choose to remove the content about child soldiers and noting WP:UNDUE / guilt-by-association - you're obviously following my contributions, but have no regard to speak to me. It seems like you do not fully understand the matter hence why you think those points apply. First of all the United States is not a minority in this context, it is a main proponent on the world stage and their views carry weight. As the sources says Turkey has been added to a US list of countries implicated in the recruitment or use of child soldiers. I did provide sources that clarified this and tried to be neutral in explaining how they were listed. As for how the US department works out the list. ″Every country in this report is placed on one of four tiers, as mandated by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). This placement is based not on the extent of a country's problem, but on the extent of government efforts to eliminate human trafficking.″ the resulting means ″States placed on this list are restricted from receiving certain types of security assistance and commercial licensing of military equipment.″' - https://www.rudaw.net/english/world/010720211

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&oldid=1040997576#Child_soldiers

I have reversed the undo and if you feel to discuss further let me know. - May have been wrong to do.

TataofTata (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @力:, I did not know maybe that I need to ping you, hence why you have not noticed.. I just wanted to point out that if you have any concerns with regards to the above addition I made, I have created a section on the talk page to discuss. TataofTata (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• @TataofTata: - I gave the wrong template, it should have been {{Welcomenpov}}, not {{Uw-npov1}}. You clearly have a POV in the area and must be mindful of Wikipedia's policies. In particular, on Turkey, high-level articles should use WP:Summary style and not include sections about fairly minor details. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@力: - Thanks for the clarification as I said, I am mindful, however which article made you add that template? I am happy to go back and correct anything that is not neutral/accurate and or cite sources. If I am not mistaken this was before your issue with child soldiers addition I made and now that has been moved to the talk section for others to evaluate. - TataofTata (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sun

I am un-watchlisting Sun due to what appears to be an incoming flood of Wikidata changes adding information about every asteroid to that entry (note Wikidata revision history). I don't know how to formally complain about Wikidata bots, if anybody here cares about the Sun and Wikidata maybe you can do something about it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Close at Talk:James Charles

I have closed a RM discussion at Talk:James Charles. I expect this may be controversial. Please discuss any concerns here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Please explain

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngman_Rhee&oldid=1051852661

Rhee Syngman, the first president of Hanguk, and my distant relative from Hwanghae or Hwanghaedo. Was responsible for several massacres, the sum of the low estimates is about 150,000 deaths, and the sum of the high estimates is about 350,000 deaths. The square root of 150000 multiplied by 350000, is 229128.7847, which rounds to 229129. This comes from a series of other articles including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea.

I am genuinely confused, did I do something to offend you? Do you think "I do not know what I am doing" or are you suspending judgement on my character and passing judgement on my work, which makes me look bad? No harm intended.

I think I solved part of the problem by finding out how to use talk pages as opposed to comments on edits. Which is what I think you might have been referring to earlier. Truly sorry, I could have saved you a lot of time if I had thought about this first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

God Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hong kuslauski: If you don't understand why the death toll of Rhee's administration sits at a geometric mean of 255800 dead is missing too much context to be meaningful, I can't help you. Also, you aren't doing things like capitalizing "North Korea". Perhaps the Teahouse can help; I've seen too many new editors with POVs regarding Communism get blocked to invest any time in helping you. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Rhee.

I listed why I said what Rhee syngmans death tolls sat where it did earlier in this post, this makes me think you didnt read much of it, if any.

Won't bother you again on this talk page, although I would venture to think you will proceed to damage my contributions without explaining in the future, maybe its for the better.

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider removing the specific names you mention in your Modest Proposal reply? There is no need to get into specific controversial editors at this forum and obviously neither of the examples you gave asked to be discussed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If we're pretending there is serious discussion to be had on that topic, I do object: we can't dance around eggshells that much and I picked two editors who know their reputation. If you're closing the discussion feel free to remove the names. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record: I went ahead and made an edit that both removed editor names and closed the thread. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello!

Hello, 力,

I saw your active edits on an article and I thought to myself, "Who the heck is this person, whose name I can't pronounce?" Now that I've read your User page (which has some great advice regarding ANI & RFAs, by the way), I guess I missed your identity change in the spring. I'll just learn to cut & paste your username unless I can just call you "Power". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

More Power to 力! חזק ואמץ warshy ^(¥¥) 15:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I left "power~enwiki" in the sig for a reason ... Anyhow, it's pronounced "Li", but differently than the Chinese surname "Li". And it, roughly, means "power". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Li, then, that I can pronounce. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of Go

I saw your comment on Talk:Mirror Go. I'd like to invite you to comment on this Wikiproject discussion. I'd like to establish a clear consensis on the project and then advocate amending the guidance at MOS:GAMECAPS to clarify the 'Go' is an exception. This topic comes up far too often. We need established policy to refer to. Coastside (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coastside: I recommend you wait until that discussion closes and then ping all the participants to a follow-up discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Great job starting the article for Diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is timely as suddenly it is a major part of so many institutional programs. Thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, 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. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

re DRV

The only thing that that discussion is becoming is "unreadably long"; and canvassing by selectively pinging people is not going to help. As for your argument, merely saying "this is not OR" without actually presenting a coherent argument about it is like saying "Keep - meets GNG" without identifying any source which actually meets it. Mysteryman's comment is "My response to the first concern is that every list and institution uses different criteria for what counts, so we should use the most expansive definition of affiliation out there." - in other words, "there are different criteria, so we should take a stance [something which is actually against NPOV] and select one and write the list based on that criteria of our own choosing [which is indeed OR]". Tired's comment is " It's also not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR as no immediate conclusions are reached (a criteria for those tags)." - something which makes no sense, because listing somebody as "affiliated with institution X" is obviously a conclusion of some form. Andrew's comment was properly rebutted at the discussion. You don't like the outcome. Fine. Making the same arguments at the DRV as at the AfD, however, does not help, as DRV is not about whether an article is suitable but whether the closer correctly assessed comments and ignored those which had no solid basis. No valid argument has been given to show that ignoring comments about the red herring of notability is wrong, or that ignoring those who merely assert something without providing any reasoning to back it up is wrong. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

re. canvassing: Tiredmeliorist has indeed not commented on the DRV... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I do like the outcome; that page was terrible. I don't like the process. Neither the votes nor the strength of argument in the discussion supported deletion. Yet you keep banging on the table. There is no reasonable WP:OR argument to delete; I could have made 3 arguments to delete and wouldn't have suggested it. (Argument number 4 would have been WP:SYNTH which is technically part of WP:NOR but generally invoked differently).
To overcome a 19-6 vote, there has to be a clear policy-based argument, and there simply isn't one. You say "ignore the vote" with one hand, and "respect the vote" with the other. I will continue to argue that the close was bad until my arguments are fully made. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not 19-6 if you ignore the red herrings about notability. The arguments about original research were quite clearly stated, something to the effect of "this is a page which is based on original criteria (which, more often that not, match few if any of the reliable sources on the topic) for its content."; or "an article which blatantly does not follow them [reliable sources] and is instead creating its own criteria for who is affiliated to which university". The argument against was basically "but there are sources!", entirely ignoring that the article did not follow such sources. That was correctly disregarded by the closer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What are those reasons that would lead to a delete vote for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The page isn't an encyclopedia article, it is a database query. Roughly, it is a WP:NOT violation.
2. It's not a notable cross-categorization as a collective. While schools talk about how many Nobel laureates they have individually, nobody (except for school partisans) really discusses or cares if University of Michigan has more than University of Minnesota.
3. WP:TNT - the page is long and ugly. Any list where both the top (split into per-school articles) and bottom (split to the obviously MOS-noncompliant title List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II) need to be cut off is too bloated to serve as a useful navigational aid.
4. We shouldn't be grouping separate Nobel disciplines together. The three hard science Nobels function fairly similarly, but Literature and Peace are generally not awarded to university faculty, and Peace is awarded to organizations which may have staff at multiple universities. And the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences really shouldn't be grouped with them at all.
5. The numbering is WP:SYNTH. The fig leaf of "According to Wikipedia policies on no original research and objectivity/neutrality, it is impossible in Wikipedia to assign various weights to different types of affiliations. Hence, all types of affiliations count equally in the following table and throughout the whole page." is in fact doing exactly what it says should not be done. To avoid SYNTH, the list should be restructured to not imply a rank-ordering.

For all these reasons, I would vote the article not be kept in its current form; however a redirect to a list of lists containing articles such as List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley would be an alternative to deletion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you on the preferred result (or at least it should be a list of affiliation of the prize winners at the time of their award). The question is how to best get that result. A discussion on the talk page may not be fruitful - so, WP:TNT? --Enos733 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enos733: As it stands, the article is already deleted: there's nothing that stands in the way of you making a draft (or an actual article) of something that isn't as flagrantly unacceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but there is a process going on now and recreating the article (even in draft form) may not be helpful to short circuit the process. --Enos733 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enos733: Making a draft which actually meets guidelines now would be a great way for it to get maximum visibility and get the input of the most people on it, i.e. it would be the most convincing way to "improve the encyclopedia" here (and would be a decent compromise which would make the AfD, the DRV and all the Wikidrama from these two things entirely obsolete). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

DRV guidelines on canvassing

This is just one article. It isn't such big of a deal. I've amended DRV instructions to preclude an appearance of canvassing... — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No no no. I've reverted that change. WP:CANVASS is already policy and your interpretation of it is both wrong and unnecessary there. If you are summarizing someone's argument, it is polite to ping them. If it gets to the point where you are pinging everyone on one side of an argument, you should do a mass ping of all participants. If you are mentioning three editors (two of whom have already participated in the thread) and basically all the editors on the other side of the argument have also already participated in the thread, there is no "canvassing" concern whatsoever. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say there'd be no canvassing, but there will easily be a canvassing concern. Edit: this is not to say that it is justified to make an actual accusation of canvassing... — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nur-Sultan

Hi there, i will have to create a move review, because „ATP Tour website referred the city as Nursultan“ is the only Argument presented pro the name „Nur-Sultan“, while pro the name „Astana“ Google Scholar and other sources were presented, showing, that Astana is the common used name in English sources.

So, how can you explain the reason for closing the discussion, I'm just wondering.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I closed the discussion because consensus was clearly against you. I will not be modifying my close, and don't feel I would need to make any further statement if you do start another Move Review discussion. You do seem to like that venue ... User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Banana Republic casting ASPERSIONS and overall not assuming good faith. Thank you. Please note that you are not the subject of the ANI complaint; I am leaving you a notice here because you have been briefly mentioned in the thread. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup after closing

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169 § Best practices for closing RMs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The RM closing instructions are not very complete after "Clean up after the move by fixing all...", but it's still a good idea to give others time to do the cleanup if you don't want to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Except it's completely fine to point to a DAB while people re-target, while leaving a redirect to the wrong page risks being wrong forever. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaving 50 articles redirecting to a disambig page makes a bigger risk of being wrong forever. Why do this out of order? Those who want the RM completed should chip in, or leave it as is, which is not wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I've closed RMs for quite some time, and links to DAB pages are always cleaned up fairly quickly; always within 2 months, and normally within 72 hours. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

How do you even know that? And how long is it OK to leave those links wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I know that per I've closed RMs for quite some time. And a link to a DAB page isn't wrong, it's just not as good as it should be. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fix Argonne

Please restore the Argonne Rebels page and refrain from any further deletions. If you had bothered to read the repertoires section you would discover that Argonne placed within the top 10, nationally, for almost 30 years. Btw, drum corps are never referred to s a "team." It is clear that you lack the knowledge to really monitor the D & B activity. Argonne73 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way. Please discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Had you done a simple Google search you would have discovered the 2015 Smithsonian traveling exhibition that was in Kansas that highlighted ONLY the Argonne Rebels and their excellence in performance. Please do a simple Google search for the Argonne Rebels and tell us how MANY internet sites you discover. Would be dozens if not hundreds. Also, please educate yourself on the activity before making other merges. Argonne73 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Argonne was one of the founding members of DCI. Argonne should have it's own page on Wikpedia. Marched 7 years with Argonne. What corps are you affiliated with and which national honors did they attain? Argonne73 (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Vital article votes: Biographies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since you were also active in suggesting that we remove some of the writers from the vital articles list, do you have any thoughts on the current slate of removalsZelkia1101 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'll take a look at the last batch later this week. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move review for Nur-Sultan

An editor has asked for a Move review of Nur-Sultan. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't intend to comment, at least not right away. If the MRV is spurious, it would be unnecessary. If editors feel the MRV is not spurious, I will allow them to say their concerns before I respond. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Special:Diff/1055247515

Curiously, that has nothing to do with my editing seems to have been an XfD closer error-- I don't make a habit of copying and pasting 65,000 bytes :). Not sure what happened. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It looked like an accidental "select all" of the AFD daily log. Figured it was easiest to just let you re-close it. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good call. It's possible I did, but I'm pretty sure this one wasn't me. Who knows, I do make my fair share of slip-ups. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

New signature

User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What's with the "a" in "powera"? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ARBCOM elections 2021

I am publicly supporting 5 candidates in the election. Two are returning arbs - Opabinia regalis and Worm That Turned. The other three are not - Enterprisey, Wugapodes, and Donald Albury.

Regarding the other candidates (note that I am likely to privately vote support for at least one of these candidates):

• Beeblebrox and Izno are too involved at off-wiki forums for me to publicly support them here.
• Guerillero and Thryduulf were both on the committee "before my time", and I don't get the sense either particularly desire another term.
• I don't like Cabayi's answer to Kudpung's question on non-participants in ARBCOM cases.
• I don't like Banedon's platform - ARBCOM should strive to be less like a courtroom.

User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)}Thanks. I believe I am with you all the way. Not sure I'll spend the time to actually vote, but it is good to know. Thanks again. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind a sidebar on recentism vs. routine coverage?

I was reading this move discussion and saw your comment. Knowing that we had disagreed in the recent McCarthy process (similarly contrasting an entertainer versus a current politician), I hoped a dialog with you might help me understand a concept better.

In the current discussion, an early and guiding assertion is on the subject of incoming links, 1200/335/179/>100. This has the appearance of statistic neutrality and impartiality, and I'll concede is certainly a worthy standard to observe. The next assertion is about pageviews, again a statistic, so I'm okay here too. Ghits, again just a number. After various assertions of policy and preference, you comment "...it may be recentism (most coverage nowadays is driven by things he says on Twitter) but he does get enough pageviews...".

I totally agree with your interpretation, and think it significant, and not because ANY context. Your comment helped me to process something that's been brewing in my mind for some time: such numeric assertions seem to have a recentism/immediacy/connectedness bias because of the frequent use of ROUTINE entertainment, celebrity and political news sources, which feed themselves and each other. In the case of McCarthy, I hoped I was making an appeal to the lasting impact of his accomplishments. Because of my view on NOTNEWS, developed as primarily a wiki-biographer of dead people, I don't necessarily agree that stuff presented in contemporary news is valid for sourcing, and certainly not statistically.

Am I making any sense? I'd like to hear you contrast your position with mine. BusterD (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• There's a lot there. I don't think "incoming links" is useful. Any metric will show Abraham Lincoln is the primary topic. But if you are arguing about whether a footballer with 100 links or a politician with 200 links is the primary topic -- either that means there is no primary topic, or the number of inbound links doesn't tell us anything useful. In this case it is the latter; incoming links is too dependent on navbars and (for footballers) whether there is a list of goal-scorers on every team's per-season pages.
  To a certain extent, we can and do use page views to determine a primary topic. If one topic has 90% of the page views, there needs to be a compelling argument from long-term significance to overcome it. In the case of Walsh, "he gets a lot of engagement on Twitter" is not a compelling argument.
  I am deliberately not going to discuss McCarthy further, but please re-ask about anything else I may have missed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We agree. I'm not here to rehash old discussion and apologize if I've acted in any unfeeling way. My intention is the opposite. In the case of a life-long entertainer like Joe Walsh, the biographical subject has received abundant coverage of almost everyday accomplishments (concerts, tours, albums, appearances), so the number of potential sources for those routine events over time are enormous. Because of those sources, some of these everyday accomplishments get their own articles. In the older RM I was taking advantage of this source-rich bias. In sports, we see the same implicit bias of abundant routine coverage. In my youth, I envisioned politicians valuing the work product of their labor (bills, programs, funding) also sometimes worthy of their own articles. But these days the routine news coverage is so involved in process, politicians seem more like partisan celebrity and less like law maker. That is, they have less to hang their hat on. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Rome template

Does this even serve a purpose anymore? BusterD (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@BusterD: It's probably not necessary, but I try to avoid thinking too much about navboxes on entertainment topics. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wisdom in that. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Flags

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of Earth, what do you think of flag of Mars? Same issues? Geschichte (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Earth anthem also seems somewhat in the same vein. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Geschichte: I'd want to do some WP:BEFORE on the claims that there are notable flags of Mars in fiction before nominating that one, but it's at least 50-50 it would be deleted. (I dread to imagine what Elon Musk might put on a flag.) I see no way Earth anthem can be salvaged at its current title -- but maybe a Songs about Earth wouldn't be stupid. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. P.S, I didn't see this one in your ds-aware block :) Sideswipe9th (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I do know the DS exist, but don't consider myself aware of them in the "how dare anyone suggest I don't know exactly when and where they apply" sense I feel about the ones at the top of the page. So I plan to stick to the yearly reminders for this one. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Lynn Barton

Hi @力 I think you're right about PROD and actually on reflection, I think that article requires improving rather than deleting. It's rubbish as it is, but actually the subject is definitely noteworthy and I'm going to see if I can improve. Thanks and All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bob Dole

On 6 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bob Dole, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

article deletion

I disagreed that this can be converted a redirect, a bold move. ~ cygnis insignis 13:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikibreak

While I may be active with declared limited-scope alternate accounts for the rest of this week, I don't plan to make any more edits with this account until January 2022. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, are you still on Discord? I just wanted to say hi. Hope you're well. Benjamin (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I am no longer on Discord. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Bummer. IRC, elsewhere? Anyway, see you around. Benjamin (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My brother got COVID don't worry about him. Christmas is canceled. My plans have been shuffled. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Dear fellow editor,

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

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

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

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

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

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

Holiday greetings (2021)

Power,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A butterfly for you!

	Hoping for you.
	I hope things start looking up for you soon. I'm excited for your return from WikiBreak! ––FormalDude talk 04:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Your RfA and Merry Christmas!

Not going to lie, had I run across the comment TheresNoTime referenced in her nomination, I would've happily co-nominated (TNT: any others, feel free to ping me). I have been itching to nominate various different editors and am happy to see you running. Wishing you the best on that! On a separate note, from my family to yours, wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello 力, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I shall let the gallery dissect the results of the RFA, and hopefully find something productive to make of it. I plan to make myself scarce while that process occurs. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll give you my take straight away: people claim to care about the impossible standards at RfA, but are perfectly happy to oppose at a split second based on a candidate who runs for RfA in a slightly different way or answers questions in a more blunt but still correct/appropriate manner. Pile-on opposes snowball as soon as one person has written something that kinda sounds reasonable on the face of it ("your username causes accessibility and searchability problems") but which they have no interest in actually raising as an issue anywhere outside of RfA (such as on your talk page at any time since you've changed username, or at a wider forum to discuss a ban on non-Latin characters in usernames). Nor will anyone even approach you about it again after the RfA has finished, in a clear demonstration that people do see admins as an elite class of users more important than simple experienced editors like you and me.

In other words—the people who claim to care about the toxic atmosphere are the ones creating it (not all of course, as you did get 50% supports, and several notable abstentions; and I think some of the opposes on other grounds were completely justified and reasonable). I have to say, I thought your RfA would last around 36 hours, but I knew it would be tanked in the manner it has. I wonder if this is anything like what John Cline meant by their comment here, which I wholly endorse. — Bilorv (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I just saw you chose to withdraw your RfA. Although I was following it, I seldom ever participate in the RfA process, though I can understand the reasons behind the concerns raised. We haven't really had any interactions of note between us, but I feel for you, especially on a day like today. I hope you keep in good spirits it doesn't put you off wikipedia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Also agree with the John Cline comment that Bilorv mentions above. Wasn't a fan of things like the username, the El_C spat or the pre-nomination performance art, but these seem like small beer in the context of your overall excellent contribution history. Sorry to see that the RfA turned out as it did, and all the best for the holidays and 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus (talk • contribs)

I did not expect the username to be an issue. It is utterly non-negotiable - I would quit the project and move to Wikidata full time before I would change it. The El_C spat ... I will not apologize for going to the mats there. I probably should - ANI is at its worst when people turn it into a wrestling match, and my comments did not help anything. If people care in a month, I may make a longer statement then. The pre-nomination stuff: trying to squeeze three months of debate and discussion into one hour never works as well as one hopes. I should have told TNT not to mention it in the nom statement. And apparently when one speaks in conditionals (if this happens, I will do that), editors feel you are a super-villain? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I was disappointed that the RfA went the way that it did and I regret that I didn't the chance to support before it closed. I've had a look at the context of that ANI comment, and even though it's not something that anyone should be proud of, I think it's perfectly understandable in a situation where a power differential was unnecessarily (and most likely unwittingly) overemphasised. I find it infinitely better to work with people who may occasionally get annoyed and drop the f-word but eventually come back to openly collaborate with you on the matters at hand, than deal with colleagues who keep a veneer of impeccable civility over a largely intransigent attitude. Anyway, I hope you do run again in the future, and even without the mop, you remain awesome asset to the project. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For stepping up at RfA. Sorry it didn't work out, but your offer is appreciated. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick Post-Mortem on the RFA

A few thoughts:

1. The "community" is schizoid and has a Frankenstein consensus on RFA matters. The community appears to believe that (A) there is a critical shortage of admins; (B) this is not caused by a shortage of new users; (C) there is no urgency in fixing problems with site processes regarding adminship. I know respected and sensible editors who agree with any pair of those, but believing all three is nonsensical. Yet that is where "consensus" is.
2. There is no mechanism for "peer review" apart from RFA. This is surely a cause of much of the problems at RFA, but I don't have a solution.
3. The nomination process has turned into a ceremonial ritual - and one that I believe the community does not really understand. One purpose of it is to demonstrate that you are not a NOTNOW candidate, and to have someone who can deal with the paperwork. There are certainly others, but I will not comment on that just yet.
4. A new recommendation - votes should be hidden from the candidate - probably by having a separate /Vote subpage. If candidates can't respond to votes, they should be permitted (and even encouraged) to not even read them during the RFA. That will certainly decrease stress - it has many of the benefits of a SecurePoll vote with none of the drawbacks.
5. There is a legitimate argument that admins should have ASCII-only usernames. We'll see if there's an RFC about that, or if I have just discovered an unwritten rule.
6. Regarding anything else - yeah. If people still care about any other issue raised at my RFA once it is late January, I will give an answer then -- it will be more productive when there isn't motivation from certain oppose voters to make me look bad.

User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I've thought of you as an awesome Wikipedian for a long time. Best of everything to you and yours this holiday season and beyond! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Paine. Have a great holiday and don't let this get you down. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone who is completely clueless about admin issues on WP I didn't even know you had been nominated until someone mentioned it here indirectly (on a seasons' greetings message), a couple of days ago. Through I link to a comment here above I finally got to the page a few minutes ago, and I skimmed through it. Didn't understand most of it, except for the fact that some people have a problem with your user name, and others may have a problem with what they call "temperament." I myself do like your username and I completely admire your honesty and straightforwardness. That's why I stalk your page. I wish you a good rest from WP and I will await patiently for your return. For me, WP would never be the same without your page to look at, once in a while. חזק ואמץ! warshy ^(¥¥) 00:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you have a talk page section ... I have a bit of an odd insider/outsider perspective on RfA, but I'd like to put my finger on one point that you made both at the RfA and above. I don't agree that "Candidates must not reply to opposers" is a rule. I did, and while it riled up a few people, from what they said, it was because they didn't believe what I was saying and found my repeating it in engaging opposers therefore made it worse; at least one person specifically said they were impressed with what I said in those responses. I firmly believe that at RfA, more than perhaps any other discussion on Wikipedia, many are judging in large part by what the candidate says and does in the RfA. It's many people's preference not to respond to opposes, but I believe the idea it's a rule has hardened from what Kudpung says in his guide, and I believe he'd agree with me that after reading (his and others') advice, the candidate should go with what feels best to them. In your case, your perception that you could not respond to opposers seems to have done damage, so I thought I should note my disagreement there.

I do think you should link to your primary account at User:力停 and/or have something in that account's signature pointing to your main account. I agree with the concern raised at the RfA about using an unidentified alt when interacting with new users. Since the user name issue was raised in several opposes and by you above, and as someone with no knowledge of Asian languages but extensive experience using alternate characters on en.wp, sometimes against opposition, I'll add that I absolutely agree with you that non-Roman usernames must be allowed; we are an international community, and plus the WMF implemented SUL. (And the proposition was tested with a couple of emoji usernames, which were found to be allowable but have been more or less gently deprecated by the community; I do have an objection to those to the extent that for some technical reason emojis cannot be enlarged like other fonts, and I often can't see them well enough to figure out what the colored blur is supposed to be.) But there was wisdom in what used to be guidance somewhere and maybe still is, to provide a user-page redirect and consider putting it in the signature, and I personally preferred it on those accessibility/recognition grounds when you had (power en-wiki) in your signature rather than the current almost meaningless (powera).

I was following the RfA with the intention of looking into your editing history, particularly in American politics (where I am one of a large number of Wikipedians who mostly stay away), in article creation (I agree with you, articles should not be padded out when there isn't that much to say, but I did find Volodar Murzin concerning and was able to update and expand it quite a bit without using my risible Russian reading ability for anything except his patronymic), and AfD (where I have the impression from reading between the lines that you may be a big deletionist, which is a red flag for me), in order to decide whether to vote, and if so, how. One of my concerns about RfA is that it's now almost pointless participating in any but slam-dunk yes RfAs since a plurality of crats decided they should override substantial opposition, but I shouldn't hold that against candidates that I might want to support. (And now you see why I write "vote" without a !.) I am not one of those who believes we are in dire danger of running out of admins: I'd like to see us stow the pitchforks when a dormant admin returns, there's a big difference between making sure they aren't being harsher than is advisable today, checks-and-balances-style, and ABF because "progress" and "What do those old farts know"; and I'd very much like to see the enormous bureaucratic edifice of extended confirmed protection, discretionary sanctions, and ABF against new accounts who show knowledge of Mediawiki software (which is widely used and was originally intended to be easy to learn) or an interest in politics, science, or business topics dismantled, and by dismantled I mean blown up and replaced with the wiki way and reinstatement of welcoming new accounts with templates containing links to our rules and guidelines, not just "Here's a link to the Teahouse and a link to a page of misleading videos by the WMF and by the way you have violated <alphabet soup> and will be blocked if you do so again, and are you a COI editor??!"

And now I'll finally stop! I was very sorry to read that you have a family member with COVID and as a result your family Christmas went by the board. I hope you are nonetheless having a good time off-wiki, and I'll wish you and yours a good Yule while I'm here. And a great year in 2022 :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks - if everyone invested as much care as you do into their remarks about RFA it would be a less broken place. I am considering answering the remaining questions posed at RFA later this week on a subpage - if I do that and miss something you have raised, I will come back to you then. User:力 (powera, π, ν)

• I feel horrible about how the RFA turned out, I honestly thought it was going to be a slam dunk or landslide as your proficiency isn’t questionable, some of our greatest editors today run for RFA for twice and yes! even thrice, few things I’d like to say, do you plan on running again? If yes
• Please do something about your name It was cited multiple times as a problem.
• Asides blatant false character assignation in the future (assuming you RFA) could you not reply to those in the oppose section or general comments section?
• Prepare thoroughly, another problem noted was that you were using this RFA to prove a point.

There are other points but I’d stop here. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas anyway, and a Happy New Year!

Whatever!

Hi 力, Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal thoughts on RFA

I was expecting opposition (or at least concern) on six different grounds for the RFA. That's certainly more than the average candidate. Those were: use of multiple accounts, participation at ANI, participation in American Politics, participation at AFD, article writing (aka. no Good Articles), and general "temperament"/"trust" issues.

I was not expecting opposition based on my username. I'm still quite surprised. Too surprised to even comment on the topic.

As far as RFA: If I changed my username to (insert random Shakespeare character name here) I expect I would pass an RFA in January 2023. I am not going to do so. I would rather keep this username than be an admin.

If you look at this the wrong way, you will say I am obsessed with being an admin, and am now blackmailing the community to change its admin username policy.

The correct answer is that I don't care at all about being an admin or the admin username policy, and was only interested due to the repeated comments that there is a critical shortage of admins. Apart from dealing with page protections, every part of the admin toolkit would make my Wikipedia experience less enjoyable.

I have determined that the shortage of admins is not more critical than the other shortages of editors.

We have a shortage of editors who care whether it is Turkey or Turkiye, and a shortage of editors who care if there is an edit war on that topic.

We have a shortage of editors who care what article we have on Diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We have a shortage of editors who edit the Indonesian Wiki. (and we have almost no editors at all who edit the Tok Pisin Wiki)

The admin shortage can go to the back of the line.

User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: Please make any comments about username policy in the subsection. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Username comments

I'm restricting my reply to the username thing: The username concern was admittedly a little hard to foresee but once aired, it's easy to see how it would get traction. The issue became prominent because the first commenter in the section figured that this is a valid concern, giving it major visibility. This managed to persuade multiple subsequent participants into agreeing. The social dynamic is so obvious and normal. It's okay. I wouldn't problematize it. You spoke of an unwritten rule, but there had very likely not even been an unwritten rule here... it's just something that was bound to pop up at some time in the project's history, and you have the "privilege" of it being your head that the collective realization rebounded off. Only now we can probably speak of an unwritten rule. Personally, I find it hard to object to the accessibility argument. Maybe the greater truth here is that this should speedily become a written rule. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a simple, written, general user policy, WP:NONLATIN and associated guideline. All that was required was to use Latin characters in their signature. There were supporters who expressed concern about this. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

All that was required was to use Latin characters in their signature You mean like how the candidate's signature says "powera" clearly after his username? Vaticidalprophet 01:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It also says encouraged, not required. Benjamin (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing that many of those who opposed based on the username themselves use a name in their signature that's slightly to substantially different from their actual username. That's probably a greater impediment to searchability and communication than is a name in non-Latin characters. – Uanfala (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Username concerns are almost always rubbish at RfA in any event. While such concerns with a non-Western name are less rubbish than most username concerns, as I said during the RfA if we precluded non-Latin usernamed persons from running we disadvantage non-Western candidates. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I have the impression that conformism (or impression of anti-conformism) may be part of it, trusting potentially less predictable members with advanced permissions that are difficult to remove (i.e. an ARBCOM process). And the understandable assumption that an admin should represent the community and be examplary. For instance, was this a learned lesson and was the username already improved, considering the fair criticism received? It may be something to think about for community integration and possibly a future RfA... Special characters in usernames have been controversial for a while, afterall (and some technical points were mentioned, like the context of communication between an administrator and less experienced users, or with members of the community using special equipment, even the common use of ping templates without needing to touch the mouse or use special input features). In any case, congratulations for the (2nd?) attempt, —PaleoNeonate – 05:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

At great risk of waxing far too poetic, it seems so true that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. As far as I'm concerned, every single oppose based upon your username should have been redacted, obliterated. There was no reason to allow that to submarine your RfA. Where are the "powers that be" who should be removing frivolous opposes? Nope, there is nothing wrong with RfA, nothing at all. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 18:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There are (ideally) no the powers that be, and that's the beauty of the project. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that (ideally) there are most certainly powers that be made up of fellow volunteer editors who fight vandalism and other things that hurt Wikipedia. The beauty of the project does not lie in the chaos of anarchy, it lies in the ability of editors to have fun improving this encyclopedia without having to worry about other editors submarining them about trivial matters like their username not being up to arbitrary standards. We have yet to reach such a level of beauty. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 18:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Harry Reid

On 29 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harry Reid, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)