User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2023

Happy New Year, Aoidh!

Happy New Year!

Aoidh,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abishe: Thank you, I hope you have a wonderful new year as well! - Aoidh (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mousepad (Xfce software) has been accepted

Mousepad (Xfce software), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Zabuton

On 5 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zabuton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the audience sometimes heckles defeated sumo wrestlers by throwing zabuton onto the stage at them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zabuton. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zabuton), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,136 views (761.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Georgia Cryptologic Center

On 8 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Georgia Cryptologic Center, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Georgia Cryptologic Center is an NSA facility that uses the code name "Sweet Tea"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Georgia Cryptologic Center. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Georgia Cryptologic Center), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me start editing!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I would like to thank you for introducing me to Wikipedia, and giving me tips as I started editing. Waitblock (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Waitblock: Thank you very much for the kind words, I'm always happy to help with whatever questions you may have. There's lots of great documentation for most aspects of Wikipedia, the trick is knowing where to look for them. Wikipedia:Teahouse is also a great place not only to ask questions, but just to skim through and see what others have asked, sometimes the discussion might help provide information you didn't know about which is always interesting. I did move this comment to the bottom (new topics go on the bottom below the older ones) but you're doing great so far and I look forward to seeing you around! - Aoidh (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

process wonkery (me, that is)

Hi - sorry to be appear to be (cough) a process wonk, however, with your self-closure here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Guardians, per WP:WDAFD, the result is speedy keep rather than withdrawn. In the case where theré's no participation and a nominator withdraws, that would be a withdrawn result. I'd see the distinction as important since the keep result establishes precedent (wheras withdrawn doesn't). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: No need to apologize, you're absolutely right. I've adjusted it accordingly. While I certainly don't plan on that kind of situation repeating, I'll keep that in mind moving forward as well. Thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Faces of War Memorial

On 30 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Faces of War Memorial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1995 dedication ceremony for the Faces of War Memorial included missing-man flyovers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Faces of War Memorial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Faces of War Memorial), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Youtube Comment Section Restrictions

Are you aware of any source wikipedia considers "reliable" for monitoring youtube comment section restrictions or is information that anyone and everyone can verify by going to the platform not permitted? 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

In order to put something like this in the article you'd need something more than just verification that comments are moderated. - Aoidh (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

But that's what they are doing, so I don't understand your feedback. I don't want to get in an edit war but I will be undoing your censorship of facts tomorrow. If your feedback is that they are not left leaning, find me a right leaning source that praises BLM like they do. If your issue is that I need to provide source that BLM is a left leaning organization that was praised by the channel I will. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That's all original research, and what some YouTube channel does with its comments is likely not of encyclopedic interest--certainly not without secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

So basically facts are not possible, sort of the same argument being used about student loan forgiveness. A unconstitutional action can not be challenged because of standing and a fact can not be mentioned without a paid article? So am I safe deleting things that make the paragraph coherent if they can not be sourced by paid article? As an example, neither of the 3 sources say Crash Course is an education channel. One says SciShow is an Education channel, but that's a different Youtube channel. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources in the article verify the educational statement. Calling it "left-wing propaganda" is a exceptional claim and would require exceptional sources verifying this, and even then that would probably at best warrant in-text attribution as to who is calling it such, rather than presenting it as a statement of fact. - Aoidh (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference 6 would not be reliable source by any stretch of imagination. It's like citing old Nazi Germany propaganda as a source on why Jewish people are the enemy. Please don't kid yourself. Fact is, if you can't mention facts from simply visiting the page, most details can not be verified by paid articles. Take your time looking for something that specifically says CrashCourse is a educational youtube channel. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I clicked on a reference at random and it verifies that information. That it's an educational channel is not a controversial statement, and it's verified by reliable sources. Here is another. These are all already present in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Source 6 was this.

Old GigaOm

This is what you used to undo my edit. I will read the article you posted now. Feel free if you wish to undo my edit to update the sources, although you might want to wait since I doubt they actually say Educational Channel. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, non-controversial statements in the lede do not need sources directly attached to them as long as it is verified in the article's sources, as is the case here, so a source does not need to be directly attached to that statement. As for additional sources, one of the authors makes clear that it is educational, and TechCrunch, BuzzFeed, the Independent, and many more are unambiguous in calling it an educational channel, this is not a controversial or unverified statement. - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a valid source, sorry. Feel free to find a paid article from a wiki considered reliable source or we can proceed with me mentioning the censorship and left wing bias. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It is, actually. The piece in the Independent is a reliable source; it is not a self-published WP:BLOG but a site with editorial oversight, and that's ignoring the other reliable sources that verify this uncontroversial information. - Aoidh (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You do realize Independent is owned by Russia. If platforms owned by Russia are now legitimate, why is RT banned everywhere? Exactly. Keep searching. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an argument you'd have to make at WP:RSN to get The Independent depreciated. Until that happens, your opinion of it's reliability isn't actionable, and again you're picking out one amongst many sources. - Aoidh (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You're doing a great job proving my point. Thanks. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:81F9:12DC:3C98:C4A6 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is that The Independent is explicitly a reliable source. Until that changes, your opinion of the reliability of the source is inconsistent with how Wikipedia views that source. Reliable sources unambiguously verify the information you're attempting to remove. - Aoidh (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Aoidh, I admire your patience. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't always feel patient enough, but I appreciate the kind words. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Draf

Hello @Aoidh i have a question is it possible that there is a wikipedia of a known macedonian musician artist that you confirm the wikipedia, is translated from macedonian wikipedia, and as i see all artists who are already verified on social media all have a wikipedia so i have one please to you for confirming the wikipedia if everything is in okay

thank you Adem jashari99 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize if I misunderstand your concern, but it looks like you're wondering why Draft:Xsoundbeatz has been denied so many times when there are Wikipedia articles on other artists. It's not that "all artists who are already verified on social media all have a wikipedia" since that's not what we look for when deciding whether an article should exist for an artist. The decline notices at the top of the draft explain why it was denied each time, and what is needed in order for Wikipedia to have an article on the individual. The article must be verifiable and notable, and written neutrally. The notability is showing using independent sources, not just sources associated with the person. The draft would need to be expanded or rewritten with sources that show that it's a notable subject (by meeting the criteria at WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Each language of the Wikipedia operates on its own with its own guidelines and criteria, so having an article at mk:Xsoundbeatz isn't a guarantee that an English-language version would be approved, as the English-language version needs to meet the English Wikipedia's guidelines. I hope this explanation helps. - Aoidh (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

thanks for your answer @Aoidh so as i understand it is not possible at the moment that the artist has a wikipedia in english version, thanks for your answer anyway. Adem jashari99 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Numbers in sport

Thank you for reverting 42 (number)‎‎. What do you think of 50.229.197.190's other good-faith contributions recording that various numbers once appeared on someone's car? Certes (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly it all seems like trivia that runs afoul of MOS:POPCULT; an article on a number doesn't need to be an (unsourced) exhaustive list of every time that number has ever been used in a context. - Aoidh (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I got rid of all the sports numbers by moving them to (the largely unsourced) List of retired numbers a few years ago, but they creep back in regularly. I see you're a rollbacker. Would that make it easy for you to revert them all? I'd have to work through each edit individually. Certes (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably more conservative in using rollback than others might be, but I don't feel like this is a rollback situation. It doesn't really fit any of the criteria of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, even the fifth point because 27 edits doesn't really feel "widespread" and I think if each and every one of their contribs are going to be reverted an explanation in an edit summary would be warranted. It looks like at the moment only 13 of their most recent edits are still up, but I'll take a look later. - Aoidh (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Precious

leafy Georgia environment

Thank you for quality articles such as Ball Ground, Georgia, Bethlehem, Georgia, Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center and Leafpad, for your willingness to do the cleaning here, for a clear userpage, basically unchanged since 2013, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2828 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the combination of those topics in a way that I hadn't considered with Leafpad. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Biography articles without living parameter

Hello @Aoidh I've decided to do some work on clearing out Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I saw from your RFA you've had some experience in this area and I was just hoping you could check my edits and let me know if I am doing it correctly. Cheers, Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you doing that, I spot checked a few of your edits and they looked fine, were there any in particular you had a question about? For background context about why that list is suddenly so large, a few days ago that list was at 0 and WPBIO tags were added to the talk pages of articles within certain biographical categories, resulting in a huge jump the number of pages in that category. I've been trying to hold off because the past few weeks it's been an extreme back and forth, it'll go from 0 to well over 1,000 in a day, and then User:BattyBot will run it's Task 30 and clear out most of them, and then I'd just clean up the few left over that it couldn't determine. Category:Biography articles without living parameter#Explanation goes into some detail about when to put what (or if the WPBIO template is even necessary) and Template:WikiProject Biography#Living people, active politicians and other BLP issues goes into detail as well, but basically the person is assumed living unless there's evidence that they're dead, or they were born so long ago that they would be by far the oldest person alive if they were still living, because there would be sources talking about that fact.

One thing I would highly recommend is using WP:RATER, as it turns the parameter into a convenient checkbox and when you check "yes" or "no" it also automatically adds blp=yes to the WikiProject banner shell if there's one present, which you'd otherwise have to do manually in order for the BLP notice to show up if the WPBIO template was in a WikiProject banner shell. Sorry this answer got so long, but I hope it helps and I'd be more happy to help with any follow up questions (though I'm logging off shortly so I may not respond until later). One last thing, I'm assuming you made this edit because it didn't show anything on the talk page when you added the wikilinks like that, and the trick is that for wikilinking categories you need to put a colon (:) at the very beginning of the wikilink after the brackets but before the word Category so that it looks like [[:Category:Biography articles without living parameter]] and the resulting link should work properly and look like Category:Biography articles without living parameter. - Aoidh (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response and for being so helpful, it really is a great help. There's no edits in particular I have questions about, but if I do I'll let you know. I'll definitely give Rater a try, and thanks for the help re wikilinking categories - you learn something every day!

One thing I will ask though is, given BattyBot does its thing, do you recommend not doing it manually until it's been through?

- Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to how frequently BattyBot runs that task, but I've reached out to the bot's operator to try find out more information. - Aoidh (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Please ping me if you get a response -Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tomorrow and tomorrow: This was their response, and as you can see the category isn't nearly as populated as it was yesterday. There's still just over 100 entries there but that's very much in the "manageable" realm of effort. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Thank you for your openness to this! Also pinging Vanamonde93. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Good going, I hope the process is smooth! - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it very much. - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am hoping that it stays away from the "character assassinations" that sometimes happen in these RfA discussions. If it helps I put in a good word for you. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that. - Aoidh (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Well congratulations! As RfAs go that one was not as nasty as some have been! - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Thanks, the worst part for sure was my mind making up these worst case scenarios the night before the RfA went live that I was stressing over for no reason. - Aoidh (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

LOL, well while the inside of our own heads is usually far worse than reality, but, that said, I have seen many RfAs that degenerate into horrible personal attacks, bringing up decades old grudges, grievances and general unwarranted nastiness. Your RfA was not totally devoid of that, although the talk page was worse than the nomination page. Oddly the worst on the nom page was in the "support" section. Almost all of it could be filed under "thanks for saving me from the commenter's mental health issues".

Back a number of years I several times declined a few people who approached me about becoming an admin, just because the process is so dysfunctional that I wasn't will to go through it and I am still not. I have probably annoyed more vandals, COI editors and trolls than most people here though. I am sure that they would all turn up. One of the main reason why we never have enough admins is that most people are not willing to endure the ludicrous process. I have thought for a long time that we need a better process for choosing admins, like simply being nominated by one admin, seconded by two more and then "done". - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Middlepost bit me again, and finally I did something about it

There's a new template called {{Interpolated comment}} you may be interested in (redirect: {{Middlepost}} ). This came about after I was bit again by interpolated comments by another user, this time here, at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. They strongly agreed with my comment, so I couldn't very well template them with {{uw-middlepost}} after that (and please don't on my behalf). I followed up what I *sometimes* do in these cases (but not very often, because it's so laborious), which is to set off the inserted comment to make authorship and sequencing clear; the result is visible at the link, or this diff. But I finally had enough of doing that, because it's such a pain. Hence, the new template. Doc page exists, but no sandbox or testcases yet; maybe they'll be there by the time you get this. Brand new, so may still have bugs, feel free to thrash it out and see if you can find anything. Also, if there's anything that isn't clear on the /doc page, can you raise it at Template talk? Thanks, and congrats on your Rfa. Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look, thanks. I like the use of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen as placeholder text, j'aime ce document historique. - Aoidh (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Trying to decide whether to split it in two, à la {{atop}}, {{abot}}. Maybe keep this one, too, as a wrapper of those two. Not sure which way to go with it. I wrestled with those little hatnotes a lot; it's hard to get brief wording that says what it should and isn't ambiguous about which user is being referred to. Feel free to alter the template wording as needed. Testcases now available, but a bit chaotic, because I threw it together quickly. Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I took a better look and it looks good to me, the only thing I might suggest is maybe changing the word "interrupts" with something that doesn't potentially sound negative. Maybe something like "was placed in the middle of..."? I'm not sure and maybe interrupt is fine, I just read through templates looking for ways that people might misunderstand and be offended by something, and that's the only part that sticks out to me. The boxed material was written by a different user which was placed in the middle of a prior comment by UserX, which continues after the box. would be my suggestion, but that's really the only thing I can see that might need adjustment in terms of the actual implementation's output. - Aoidh (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yah, I didn't really like interrupts either; it ended up that way after previous trials where I realized the way I had it prior to that was ambiguous about whether User:Example1 was the OP user, or the second user. Your wording works better, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about the templates {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} that are used for closing discussions (a.k.a atop / abot), and whether this one should follow that model. We could modify {{Interpolated comment}} by splitting it in two, so they could put {{Interpolated comment top}} above the inserted comment (or alias "ictop"), and a paired, "icbot" template below it. That might be easier for users, as it would more clearly delimit the top and bottom of the middlepost, and is easier than having to place two ending curly brackets in the right place after the interpolated comment. Or we could keep this one, which might be better for brief middleposts, or when a user responds with a flurry of brief middleposts, like I've occcasionally seen when the responding to each bullet point in a series with a brief response, where having top and bottom templates for each one might be too obtrusive. I think I'm leaning to having it both ways, what do you think? Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm not sure, I can see the appeal to both and I guess its actual usage would determine that would best be implemented. I think it might be worth bringing to the attention of a wider group of editors and seeing what input they would have, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, since it's relevant to WP:INTERSPERSE? - Aoidh (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll follow up with that in due course, after I catch up with a few things. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Determined GNU spammer/vandal

Hi there! Could you have a look at this IP and consider a block. I have already given him four warnings and he is continuing on his tear of trying to add GNU to every article. Special:Contributions/2804:14C:58:5564:6475:CFEF:DEA7:DECF - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Given my history of reverting edits that add GNU/Linux to articles I feel like I'm WP:INVOLVED with that topic specifically and shouldn't be the one to take any sort of administrative actions in that regard, unfortunately. - Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for considering it. Just so you know, I brought the issue to you because I thought you were in the best position to understand what was actually going on there! - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ahunt: I'm very familiar with the situation, and that's kind of the problem with being WP:INVOLVED, in that I've tackled that issue for years with various IPs. - Aoidh (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for looking at it anyway. Hopefully he has given up and gone to bed.

If it is not too much trouble, I have another issue underway that you ptrarbly have not done before: an editor is doing a slow edit war to include a gallery of his own (and other) photos at Lyon Air Museum in direct violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:GALLERY, as I quoted in my edit summary. I have warned him but don't want to revert him a third time. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ahunt: I'll take a closer look this afternoon, but I think the best way forward in the meantime would be to try to start a talk page discussion and leave a message on their talk page notifying them of it, so that way per WP:BRD and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR it shows that you're trying to engage and resolve the issue via discussion. As a suggestion, that looks like something that can be resolved by replacing the gallery with a Template:Commons category via {{commonscat|Lyon air museum}} or maybe Template:Commons-inline, that way the photos are still available but they're not causing a WP:GALLERY issue. - Aoidh (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to let you know about the GNU spammer/vandal: many editors jumped in to revert and warn his many IP socks and finally the account he created, and another admin range blocked the IPs and indef'ed his account. Hopefully that will be the end of that "tear"! - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, while I unfortunately couldn't act in an administrative role in this matter, I was keeping an eye on it. - Aoidh (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully that "drama" is over, but I will monitor, too! - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:IHateFastFoodSoMuch

Please revoke their tpa. Good job being an admin so far too! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done and thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Passing the baton

	A baton for you!
	As per tradition (since Tamzin began it for DanCherek's RfA), I happily pass the admin baton to you. Congratulations on passing RfA with flying colors and wielding the first new mop of 2023! Whether on Wiki or on Discord, don't hesitate to reach out to any of us for commiseration advice or second opinions. Good luck, and happy mopping! Complex/Rational 00:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm sure there will be no shortage of questions from me in the near future. - Aoidh (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too - I remember when I was accepted at RfA, the feeling of relief and pleasure, and also bewilderment at all the new buttons that appeared in my Twinkle menu. If I can ever be of assistance, feel free to ping me (particularly with regard to any concerns about sockpuppetry which is my main area of activity at the moment). Girth Summit _(blether) 20:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll just add that it's great that you joined the DYK team, we can always use more help mopping. You certainly stepped into a minefield on Template:Did you know nominations/Lithophane, but you seem to be handling it well! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

dyk

Hey, Aoidh! Congrats on the successful RfA.

You'd mentioned wanting to become a bit more familiar with DYK processes before adminning there. IMO the best way to become a DYK expert is to build a few preps, which you've done, so I think you're actually ahead of the game at this point. Everything you need to know about moving a prep to queue, you can learn by building preps. The PSHAW tool works for moving preps to queue. When I move a prep to queue, I do it before doing the re-checks, simply to signal to other admins that I'm going to check that set. Some prefer to do the checks first and just mark the set as being in use.

I do also think it's helpful to keep an eye on questions brought up by prep builders at WT:DYK, and (to a lesser extent but still worth paying attention to) complaints brought up at ERRORS. Hope this is helpful! Valereee (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thank you very much for the advice, I have done just that and checked through each entry thoroughly after promoting it (though I may use "in use" next time, not sure). I tried to do it sooner but the other admins are often pretty quick and by the time I look at it an hour or so after a spot has opened up it's already filled. It's hard to believe it's only been since the beginning of the year since I went to your talk page about helping at DYK, but once I have a bit more free time coming up soon I'm definitely going to jump in whenever I see spots open to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to be notified when someone is requesting assistance from a DYK admin, please consider adding yourself to {{DYK admins}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mandarax: Thank you, I had forgotten about that template. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Your mention of the wikilinks during your RfA received my attention. I now wouldn't add wikilinks for people anymore. But Interwikilinks I still see as valid, if you do not change my mind.

I also have another issue. There are the silent interwikilinks (I call silent the blue ones that are actually interwikilinks), and then there are the red interwikilinks. The silent ones give the reader and the editor the impression that an article already exists, and then also they do not change into links to the article in the English language once they are created.

I asked for a script to show the silent interwikilinks in an other color, but with no success for now. My hope is that with a wellmeant raise of concern by an admin the tool might get created a bit sooner:) Or maybe you have an even better idea. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: If you're referring to Template:Interlanguage link, such as {{ill|Peder Sunesen|da}} producing Peder Sunesen, I've never personally used it to link a interlanguage biography, usually some building or something, but I personally would still apply the same standard to it, where if the context of the red link would show any resulting incorrect bio made with that same name in a negative light, I probably would avoid linking it, but it seems case-by-case as far as what the article the link is being placed in is saying and I'm honestly not sure about an easy answer for that since it's an atypical edge situation where there is an article, it's just not in English (that happens often but the ill template doesn't get used super often).

As for the silent wikilinks, I'm assuming you're talking about the usages that get populated into Category:Interlanguage link template forcing interwiki links? It does say on both that category's description and in describing the "forced" parameter for the ill template that This feature should not be used in articles under most circumstances. so I feel like perhaps some of the problem may be that it's being used in situations where it shouldn't be. - Aoidh (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for for the reply. I agree with you about introducing redlinks. But I am not sure if we are really writing about the same when I mention the silent interwikilinks or interlanguage links even though I agree with your mentioning that its being used in situation it shouldn't be.

The articles in the Category:Interlanguage link template forcing interwiki links don't seem to include the silent interlanguage links that I meant.

So I show I recent experience of today that triggered this discussion. I had also an example in the English language wikipedia but this one is from the French wiki. Tomoko Akane, (an ICC judge) had a silent wiki link to the German wikipedia but a French one was already created. So the link didn't turn blue for the French article. Same also happens in the English wikipedia if articles have silent interlanguage links. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're not talking about someone using Template:Interlanguage link to produce something like Peder Sunesen, you're talking about someone using something along the lines of [[:fr:Géographie de la Normandie|Géographie de la Normandie]] to produce Géographie de la Normandie in place of the non-existent English-version Geography of Normandy. That seems to be a situation where Template:Interlanguage link should ideally be used but isn't, since that template is specifically designed to account for newly created local-language articles being created. - Aoidh (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, such wls I call silent interlanguage links. It's a small problem, but I saw it on several occasions. Maybe I should add this Tomoko Akane example to my request, so then the developers understand the issue a bit better. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Incident Universalsunset/Jessica Nabongo

Hello Aoidh, I saw that you closed the discussion for delete for Jessica Nabongo. I would like to ask that you also deal with this incident: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123#Destructive_editing_by_User:Universalsunset. or tell me what needs to be done, so that I can actually edit the article. I see that you are a new admin. Sorry to tackle you with this. K.Nevelsteen (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@K.Nevelsteen: This ultimately looks like a content dispute which seems to be why the AN/I discussion was archived without any administrative action; there was nothing an administrator needed to do at that time. I will say though that sources like this do support the other editor's assertion, so this does not appear to be WP:OR. Replacing that with a statement that the fact is "widely reported" is WP:WEASEL and is sourced to the individual's book, which is less than ideal; claims like that need independent sourcing. That wording needs to be reworded, needs much better sources, and you shouldn't remove reliable sources simply because they contradict what you'd like the article to say.

My suggestion would be first and foremost to stop edit warring on the article back and forth with each other to avoid anyone being blocked or the page being protected (which would mean it could not be edited even if it was a version of the article you disagreed with). Continue discussion on the talk page without accusing anyone of anything (especially without evidence); focus on the content, not the contributor. If the discussion remains at an impasse, consider using WP:DRN to help resolve the dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look at underlying reference to the link you tagged [1], then you will noticed it is source from Spotts herself. Universalsunset also speaks as if they have some type of contact/relation to Spotts.

As for "widely reported". She has been "widely reported" being first, but it is not official that she is first. She is also not second, because no sources say so. What wording is not a WP:WEASEL in this case? If you look at the edit history, I tried stating she was first with text saying it was disputed. It was reverted and is probably a hard pill for people on the opposition to swallow. What is neutral non-weasel wording in this case?

I'm trying not to edit war, but Universalsunset reverted all my changes, even when correcting the title of the book and the discussion for delete template; just blind revert. If that doesn't warrant some action, then I simply don't understand Wiki policy anymore. Rollbacks used to be a privilege and to be used sparingly. I am open for using WP:DRN, but not when ALL my edits are reverted; not edited in good faith, but simply reverted.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, you are both reverting each other. You may not be trying to edit war, but you're both reverting each other with vague or problematic edit summaries. I'm not sure what you mean by "blind revert" because they have made plain their issue with your edits on the talk page. You reverted their content wholesale and called the content they added original research, when it is very clearly supported by at least some sources; it is not original research. They may or may not have been revering all your edits, but from what I can see you're also reverting all of theirs. Given that you're both doing the same thing, are you editing in good faith? If so, extend the same courtesy to them and assume good faith on their part, and focus on the content. As for rollback, they do not have the Wikipedia:Rollback user right. My suggestion would be to take this to DRN and go from there. - Aoidh (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You've added a disputed wording in the article, but not for the reasons that the other editor is bringing up; the dispute you're adding is she may have not visited all countries because Golan Heights is not technically Syria, when the dispute in question is that there was a prior person who made the same claim. As for the source I mentioned, it's not the only one. Even sources that "widely report" on her claim often point back to this CNN piece, which itself notes that the claim is just that and is neither substantiated nor uncontested, so why remove mentions of the contested part of the claim? The article should reflect what reliable sources say, and even many reliable sources that repeat her claim point out that she is not the first to make this "first" claim. It's not unreasonable to suggest that such content would belong in the article and would be WP:DUE, and I think making it clear that (1) it's a self-reported claim and sources at best say "the first Black woman to have documented this feat" and (2) she's not the first to make that claim would be a good compromise. Ideally "widely reported as being..." should be replaced by something like "claims to be" since that's the most accurate way to represent that for both of these individuals making this claim. It would also have the added benefit of making the article reflective of the sources. - Aoidh (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did edit in good faith. I did not revert the text, but tried to piecewise make changes with reasoning. Whereas the other user simply reverted everything and anything I posted. Note, that my last edit is a test, because I'm not going to waste my time if Universalsunset is going to do another revert when they come online.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the other sources, just the one titled "CORRECTION:" the one you linked. So, please advise as to whether that is creditable according to Wiki policy. It is the only source that says Nabongo is second.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"the dispute you're adding is she may have not visited all countries because Golan Heights is not technically Syria" those are not my words. Those are the word I'm trying to remove, since they don't have a source. Any mention of "she's first" (as you have suggested) is being reverted to "she's second" by Universalsunset; it is that simple. If no action is taken against Universalsunset then the article will state "she's second". Perhaps you should try and make the edit.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You said the other use doesn't have rollback. Wiki has changed to include revert notifications. When do Revert notifications get generated? Screenshot-2023-03-31-at-11-48-24.png--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the simplest thing to do is to make clear in the article that this is a self-reported claim, not to word it in any way that gives an impression that it is substantiated, and not to remove mentions of the other woman's claim as it seems to reasonably relate to this individual's claim. That seems like a fair compromise and appears WP:DUE. If their concern is that this person is not truly "first" but "second", removing the impression that it's a substantiated claim would bypass that issue entirely, and often the easiest way to resolve an issue is to make is a non-issue. If you're working toward resolution in a meaningful way you're never wasting your time, and if you go into DRN showing that you're willing to collaborate constructively and work toward a reasonable solution, it goes a long way. To that end, I would ask that you please stop referring to the other editor as "the opposition" as that alludes to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. They are not the opposition, they are an editor that you happen to disagree with on this matter, that's all. Also to reiterate, please don't accuse them of anything like bad faith editing or of having a WP:COI without any evidence. If you have evidence of a COI, take it to WP:COIN, but leave it out of the discussions and focus on the content. I am not going to take any administrative action on this because it is a content dispute and they haven't edited the article in over a week so other than your revert from today, the edit warring is a week old. To avoid being involved in the dispute I will not be editing the article, I am simply making suggestions for the sake of dispute resolution. For your revert/notification question, see Help:Notifications#Reverted edits. - Aoidh (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried those edits you mentioned (Nabongo claims ..., leaving out the controversial text, etc) leading to my own frustration. They are the opposition when they block all my edits on the grounds of "vandalism"; that is not someone you can collaborate with. I expect a revert later in the day. Without intervention, that will be my last edit. I have better things to do with my time.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case I think WP:DRN is the best path forward. - Aoidh (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Woni Spotts

Hello again Aoidh, I have another question. It seems that the page on Woni Spotts was deleted after repeated vandalism. A copy of the article was archived here. Universalsunset said the page resulted in her getting death threats. If the article on Nabongo exists, I wouldn't see a reason why Spotts shouldn't exist also, since (I think) the sources are there. Should the article on Spotts just be left deleted or should an attempt be made to recreate it with valid citations? If it were recreated, where do you mention the controversy between the two articles? On both articles? This is also a question for future knowledge. K.Nevelsteen (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woni Spotts, so I think if someone were to recreate the article they should submit it as a draft via WP:AFC with sources that show that notability has changed in some way or that they meet some notability guideline and that WP:BLP1E isn't an issue. It's interesting that the Spotts article was deleted while the Nabongo article was kept, but discussions are a few years apart and no one in the Nabongo AfD brought up WP:BLP1E as a reason for deletion, and consensus went towards keeping the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not versed on WP policy naming yet, the naming developed over the years when I wasn't editing very much. On the delete discussion for Nabongo, I did mention "on the same grounds as" the Spotts article, but it didn't seem to carry weight. Thanks for the information on WP:AFC.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Your RFA

— xaosflux ^Talk 23:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

👏👏👏 Congratulations! Tails Wx 23:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the first successful RfA of 2023!! Congrats, however we have waited for so long... Thingofme (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! Quick, who has the baton and the tshirt to foist shower upon on our new admin? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

ComplexRational, where's the baton? Tails Wx 00:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all, I really appreciate it and appreciate everyone who commented at the RfA. Now I have quite a bit of reading to do. :) - Aoidh (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Enjoy your 35% pay rise! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm a bit late (the RfA was closed in the middle of the night for me), but congratulations for an overwhelmingly positive RfA! I'm sure you'll make a great administrator; it makes me happy that the first successful RfA was closed on my birthday. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: Thank you, and I hope you had a great birthday! - Aoidh (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: Dusted out of the archives and now on this very-much-live talk page :D ^Complex/_Rational 00:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! Thanks for the interesting response to my question (Q8), hope to see you around more in administrative areas! echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations. I know you'll do great. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No shirt yet? Must fix. Congrats! :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well done on a well deserved RfA. If you require anything at all from me, don't hesitate to ask. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations. I am glad you didn't need my !vote but sorry that I missed your RfA. I've been online only briefly in recent weeks due to recent eye surgeries but I usually check RfAs. So I am not sure how I failed to see it one of the times I was online. In any event, well deserved, congratulations and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

How are things going with the surgeries? I hope you are feeling better. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Aoidh. Thank you again for your openness to serving in this way. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to each comment individually, but thank you all very much. I really do appreciate it, it's been quite a ride the past week or so and now that my talk page isnt quite so active I wanted to thank you all. @Arbitrarily0: thank you for nominating me and the kind words in your nomination. - Aoidh (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

TPA

Hi there. You recently blocked Ashwinjohn77 for WP:NOTHERE. I think this edit made after the block deserves revoking their talk page access, don't you? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the single short response directed at me in response to a block notice is enough to warrant revocation of talk page access. If it continues beyond just the single edit then that should be re-examined. - Aoidh (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

He appears to have given another editor besides you the middle finger as well. I would recommend taking another look. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That was prior to the block, and he hasn't edited since that day, I don't see that talk page revocation is necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK Queue

Hi. For the next few days I'll let you handle filling the queues. I need a break. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Not a problem, I've been checking each day but you've been quicker than me with moving them to the queues. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:DaRealToonChance

This user has ignored several talk page warnings, and continues to add poorly sourced information. I have reason to believe that they are WP:NOTHERE. Please block them. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look, though it might be better to take this to something like WP:ANI. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not blocked them indefinitely but rather for 72 hours for edit warring and persistently adding unsourced content, and warned them about continuing to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleting link for PDC event in Template

Hi,

I see you (as Administrator) deleted link in template for PDC events: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3A2023_in_PDC_darts&diff=1148445750&oldid=1146667846&diffmode=source after AfD, which was started by a user, who conducts crusade against Darts articles, despite himself having quite a lot of his articles in AfD lately.

I don't really agree with him, but it's not the case here. I wanted to ask you to not delete those links from template in this section, because it confuses people. In my opinion in this situation it's better to keep redlink than no link, because redlink says that event exists, but there is not article for that. No link would suggest, that there was no event at all (which confused me few minutes ago, that I clicked on event nr 3 and got event nr 4). Haifisch7734 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the link per WP:EXISTING, though I can see how it might be an exception via the "completeness" wording at Wikipedia:Navigation template#Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles. That navigation template is not in great shape whether this link is kept or not, however; a navigation template where half the links are red links that don't actually navigate anywhere isn't particularly useful to readers. However I have no issue if you want to restore the red link, given the Wikipedia:Navigation template wording. - Aoidh (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Who is that person doing this? Because I find it totally ridiculous. Okay, this article needed better sourcing, I added it, and submitted the draft. But to delete everything even from the template, like the tournament never existed...how is that improving anything? It looked like there are only 12 tournaments in the season, so basically Wikipedia is showing false information. The Event 3 was just gone, that's not good. If something needs better sourcing, okay, let's talk and add it, but please do not just evaporate everything based on someone flagging it during his "crusade". DarthBob (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It was deleted due to a consensus formed in a discussion between editors at AfD, not because a single editor "flagged" it. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, additional question. After deleting article, is everything lost, or at least history is available, so I could take a screenshot of the article? I don't remember wiki mechanism regarding article deletion Haifisch7734 (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

When an article is deleted the content and its history is not normally accessible, though it is still technically there since administrators can view and restore the content. Given that this is an event that (from what I can tell) just finished a few days ago and many of the comments in the AfD suggested that the article may just be WP:TOOSOON, it's not unreasonable to assume that sources may be forthcoming that would make the article's subject notable whereas it wasn't during the AfD. I can restore the article as a draft, but since it was deleted via a deletion discussion it would need to be submitted it via WP:AFC and approved before being moved back to articlespace. - Aoidh (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Haifisch7734: The article can now be found at Draft:2023 International Darts Open. - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Apart from issue with sources, article is in good in condition and it would be shame to lose it ;) Haifisch7734 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Block evader immediately resumed bad behaviour

Hello, I notice you blocked User talk:216.154.5.50 for block evasion. Immediately after the block expired, they are back to edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 12:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, but since they've been IP hopping and evading the previous block I also reapplied the previous page protection to the template they were edit warring at as well. - Aoidh (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant (Resident Evil)

Hello, Aoidh,

I was wondering why you closed this AFD a day early. We usually let them run at least 7 days. I've closed some AFDs within an hour of their closing time, I was just surprised to find this one closed so far in advance. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I did want to thank you for your recent help at AFD. We're down to just a few admins who regular patrol and close discussions so it's always nice to get a few other administrators into the mix. Your work is appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Oh no, if it was closed a day early that was completely unintentional. It was in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 29 listing (here) under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Old discussions (open). Have I misunderstood and those discussions aren't actually ready for closure? I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and thought it meant that being listed there meant the appropriate discussion period had ran and the listings were eligible for closure. Is that not correct, and if so is there a better way to determine that? - Aoidh (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see the issue now...it's the right day, but that AfD wasn't opened until 23:44 on March 23, so it shouldn't have been closed that early; I assumed that being listed in that queue meant it was good to close but now I see the issue, I need to actually look at the timestamps for when they were opened on the most recent closure queue. I apologize, that was a misunderstanding on my part, and I'll be sure to look for that moving forward. Should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant (Resident Evil) be reopened or how should that be addressed? - Aoidh (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Looking at it again the discussion was started on 29 March but the nom's signature for some reason says 23 March, I think that discrepancy also contributed to that issue, I'm still not sure why the date is so radically different there. - Aoidh (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats for recently becoming a admin/sysop. I look forward to see you contributions. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Corvette ZR1: Sorry I missed this initially, but thank you! :) - Aoidh (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove line from paragraph

Hy

You remove this line "Regular maintenance and lubrication of these components are essential for smooth and best grooming." from

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

Why did you remove even after this is totally relevance to this topic. Tayyabkhan11 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It was removed for a few reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide so statements like that don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Also, one could simply discard old hair clippers and buy new ones just as well and have the same level of "smooth and best grooming" so maintenance is certainly good practice but not "essential" for that purpose. Lastly, and most importantly, it was poorly sourced to a blog which is not a reliable source, and one which you have been adding to Wikipedia despite the unsuitability of it as a source (see WP:LINKSPAM). It was the inappropriate link that was being removed more so than that content, though the content also isn't ideal. - Aoidh (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Then guide me about your requirments of adding something so I take care next time. 202.163.87.193 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is adding self-published sources, especially when the edit adds promotional wording with promotional links. The two websites that were added are not appropriate to use as references or as external links. If you are affiliated with a website in any way, it's best to avoid adding it to Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hy Aoidh

Ok i understand this but if a self published source is giving informaiton correctly mean relevence information then is this acceptable?

2nd is if i share a main sitelink then its allowed or not? (Note: In both condition the relevce and information is first priortiy)

Last I saw some low authority site in refrence section how it's get permission to be?

Waiting for your response Thanks Tayyabkhan11 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that these two sites you're promoting are not reliable sources and cannot be used as such. They cannot be used to support content, even if that content happens to be accurate; actual reliable sources would be used to support that content. Self-published promotional sites cannot be added to articles simply because the statements they are attached to may be accurate. These sites do not belong on Wikipedia in any way, even as just reliable sources (per WP:EL). - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! (John Hoke DYK)

Re: John Hoke III DYK: As the bot-generated notice on my Talk page doesn't have a "Thank" hyperlink, thought I'd swing by your Talk page to say thank you. It was a nice thing to see it on the Main Page today! Thanks, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Thank you, though it must be said that even though my name's on that notice, the reviewers and promoters involved also deserve the thanks, and of course thank you for creating the article and putting in that work in the first place. - Aoidh (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I've tried to be meticulous about using the "Thank" button for the various editors who've been involved. If I missed any (& if any happen to read this – please know), it was an oversight! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating stats here. Remarkable how impactful the DYK feature is in generating awareness of the chosen subject (and adjacent linked articles). Great work DYK team! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Spammer

User:Vikasdeep0p1w is adding needless and unhelpful external links in the prose of articles. Appears to be a spammer self-promoting. Please block. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: They've been blocked by another admin. Moving forward it's quicker to report such editors to WP:AIV, especially if I haven't edited in a few hours and aren't active on here. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian proverbs

Hi! Would you be willing to explain a bit more about how you found consensus to delete Serbian proverbs rather than to perform some sort of cross-wiki merge (either with keeping the page as a cross-wiki redirect or via the transwiki method proposed by Brainulator9)? I'm struggling to wrap my head around how there was some affirmative consensus to delete as opposed to the ATD proposed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Hello, the consensus from what I saw was that the subject was not suitable for a Wikipedia article, though transwikification was suggested without a specific target agreed upon, which is why I noted that the article can be deletion for that transwifification if desired by anyone. However, I probably should have closed it as "transwikify" rather than "delete" since that was a valid ATD offered and agreed upon in the discussion so you're not wrong in that, and I apologize for getting that wrong in the close. Thankfully it's an easy fix and I've restored the article for said transwikification as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit at Elle Leonard

Your edit at Elle Leonard messed stuff up and her article is going to be on the main page at DYK this week.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I am aware of its status at DYK, that's why I added the archive links, though I apologize that they did not all work as intended. I don't have access to the CPL so I can't check those links to see what, if anything, went wrong there. If it's the slash turning into "%2F" in the link that is breaking the reference then that might be worth looking into why that happened, but I don't know if that's what you're referring to. I'm happy to look into that and bring up that issue at Meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot if that indeed the issue so that it can be addressed. I do think, however, it would be beneficial to restore the other archive links (such as the Tribune and EOnline) that did work properly, since as you say it will be on the main page and the archive links ensure that the information can be verified by the reader in the event that the link becomes unavailable during its time on the main page (which has happened before). - Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been manually checking when the original links are modified like that when IABot is run, but because that particular website's references are behind a subscription I wasn't able to tell that the link was no longer working. I have started a discussion on the bot's talk page to see if this can be addressed and avoided moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Just wanted to give you an update and let you know that the team that maintains IABot have resolved that issue, so hopefully it won't reoccur. - Aoidh (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Walkies

Hi. When closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkies, did you also take into account the RM discussion on the talk page? – Uanfala (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I did. That RM had already closed as The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. As it happens, there is also an AfD open for this page which should take its normal course. There was nothing in the move discussion that would affect the outcome of the AfD and many of the comments in the RM suggested deletion rather than a move. - Aoidh (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've made a bunch of edits to ensure that navigation to the relevant articles is still possible after the page's deletion [2]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Adams

Hey I feel the deletion of the article was very hasty and not very democratic, it had been relisted and had 1 vote to keep, then it got 1 vote to delete and was deleted straight away which I disagree with and still think the article is of notability and importance that included book, music chart, and TV references. Can you please relist it for more discussion and contribution? Many thanks Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

AfD discussions are open for at least one week. This particular discussion had been open since March 15, and having been closed on April 13 was open just shy of a month and had already been relisted three times, which puts an AfD discussion in a special category since discussions are not generally relisted more than twice. Far from being closed in haste, it had actually been open for an atypically long period of time. As far as the deletion being not very democratic that is because Wikipedia is not a democracy and the outcome of deletion discussions are not determined by vote but rather by consensus, which per WP:DETCON is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The strength of the positions is more important than how many people "voted" on the matter.

The nom's deletion rationale and the deletion comment explained how the article failed to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and was also a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons concern because of the poor quality of sourcing. Biographies of living persons, or BLP articles, must adhere to that policy and are held to a high standard because of how they affect living people. Keep arguments suggesting that the content is interesting or important for being the first to do something are not based in guideline or policy, nor is the suggestion that guidelines are met because the content is verifiable; that an article includes references does not mean they are references that contribute to the notability of the subject. None of the arguments in favor of keeping the article showed that notability was met, not in any way that reflects Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, I understand how discouraging it is to have an article that you created be deleted, it's happened to me as well and to most editors who create articles, I'd imagine. Creating articles takes a lot of effort and it's not pleasant to see that effort deleted so I understand the frustration that comes with it. I would suggest using WP:AFC when creating your first (or first few) articles to get feedback and guidance which will help make sure that an article has the notability it needs. - Aoidh (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the reply, I understand. I still feel that the star of one of the biggest British Children's programmes, who's also had hit records is something that deserves an article.

Would you be able to put the article into a draft to be worked on like you mentioned, I still would like to work on it and potentially meet the criteria. Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Draft:Brett Adams, the only stipulation is that it should be submitted via the WP:AfC process and approved by a reviewer before being moved back into articlespace, to avoid deletion under WP:G4 or similar. - Aoidh (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

April songs

April songs

my story today

Thank you for consistent good work on the DYK queues! - My story today is about the Alchymic Quartet, - I went away from DYK but it's the last one from last year. - The songs are about vacation, pics not yet completely uploaded. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Thank you for patient help with the promotion. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Want to learn something new? WP:ITNN. There's a nomination on 10 April, Karl Berger. It's marked ready, and should go to {{In the news}}, first of the Recent deaths, dropping the last. A similar edit was performed here. Then you go to the nomination and click on each "credit" - that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone else did it - I was just getting nervous seeing no admin active. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For all your dedication. BorgQueen (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Thank you. :) - Aoidh (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Santos Silva (2nd nomination)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of [3]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ScottWillis45 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion
• Reason for choice: I believe that the deletion of the Ricardo Santos Silva article was incorrect, as the subject meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and should be considered notable. The subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources, which demonstrate their notability.

• Detailed arguments:

 * The subject has been covered by several reputable sources, including Reuters, The Guardian, and BBC. These sources provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject, thus satisfying WP:GNG requirements.
 * The CNBC interview with Ricardo Santos Silva alone provides in-depth information about him, his work, and achievements. It is hard to argue that an interview with the subject does not provide detailed mention, as the very nature of interviews is to focus on the interviewee.
 * The Entrepreneur of the Year award article supports notability, as it shows recognition of Ricardo Santos Silva's achievements within his field. This award is a testament to his impact in the industry, making him a notable figure.
 * It's important to consider the cumulative weight of these sources, as each contributes to establishing the subject's notability. While some may argue that individual sources do not provide extensive coverage, the combined coverage from multiple reliable sources indicates that Ricardo Santos Silva has garnered significant attention in the media.

ScottWillis45 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, I've responded at the DRV entry. - Aoidh (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Crash Course revert

Is there only one series for Crash Course filmed in Indianapolis? I was under the impression that there were multiple, hence why I made the edit I made on that page.
Thanks,
Packer1028 (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Packer1028: I thought it was just one but the article says The Computer Science series and all series on the humanities (excepting Philosophy and Economics) were filmed in a studio in Indianapolis, Indiana. However that statement is unsourced so I can't verify whether that is true or not. If you are able to find a source that says multiple series are there I'm fine either way. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it's not a huge deal for me. I know they've said in multiple series that they're filmed in Indianapolis, but I've done a cursory search, can't find a good source, and don't really have the time. I'll leave as is, at least for now.

Thanks,
Packer1028 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK checks

Hi Aoidh

I hope you're doing well, and glad to see you're helping out with the DYK sets! I just wanted to check if you're aware of the admin checks that we carry out for the promoted sets? This involves thorough vetting of the hooks and articles in the set, tweaking things if there are uncontroversial changes, and highlighting more difficult issues at WT:DYK, and it's vital that this is done for all sets before they go live. It can also be quite time consuming, which is why we often share the load around the available admins; this will be particularly relevant as it seems we're going to move to two sets per day shortly. Perhaps you have been doing this, but I know when I first started working on sets I wasn't aware of the requirement, so thought I'd mention it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: hey thanks, and I hope you're doing well too. I wrote a longer response but accidentally hit a wrong button on the mobile app and lost it all. Fun. I've been checking the various items for each hook which takes me about 30 minutes or more for each set, depending on how involved it is. I do feel like the "fun police" when I have to say something about a hook at WT:DYK, like the song hook I commented about yesterday. I've also been keeping an eye on WP:ERRORS and taking comments there into account when moving forward. Has there been an issue with the checks or something that seems to have been overlooked? - Aoidh (Away) (Aoidh's talk) 10:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, that's great then and no there isn't an issue. I only mentioned it because you're a fairly new admin and I noticed you'd done quite a few sets lately, and it's not always obvious that promoting the hooks needs a more than just copying the prep... Since I did get rapped on the knuckles myself a few years back. I get you on the "fun police" part, nobody likes having things queried, but it's all in the name of giving accurate information to the readers so has to be done! Happy editing  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes they call it party pooper too. BorgQueen (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Rescued" sources in Cathy Whims article

Hi Aoidh, I had reverted 2 bot-generated rescues of sources in Cathy Whims, and you reverted the changes back. The problem I'm seeing is responses from the wayback machine that are not versions of the original urls.

• The archived url for the ancestry link returns an error message, "Hrm. Wayback Machine has not archived that URL."
• The archived url for the google book reference sys only <meta property="

Since the rescues were bot-assisted, the bot may need to be re-programmed to exclude pages behind a paywall, like the Ancestry site, or for google books. Or have I just wandered into an AI maze? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: My apologies, I didn't realize the bot had already been run and reverted, I ran the bot when I noticed references without archive links, and just happened to fail to check them this time which I try to do to make sure they worked. The Ancestry link/paywall issue isn't super unexpected, but I'm wondering what happened with the GBooks link. Regardless, the idea about paywall exclusion might be worth bringing up at Meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot though. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion

Of Drawn Burn Caboose (talk · contribs), who is a sock of I don't know how many other accounts, the most recent of which are 212.2.212.10 (talk · contribs) and 93.81.206.249 (talk · contribs). With your blessing, I'll revert their edits per WP:REVERTBAN. Thanks, 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm no SPI clerk or regular, but it does look like block evasion to me, given the articles edited and the edits themselves. - Aoidh (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitanate of Kyiv

Hi, you closed the nomination as Keep. From the comments in the discussion, it was mentioned that where the other articles have superior and more detailed material, that that need not be duplicated in the article of Metropolitanate of Kyiv itself. If I interpret this correctly, the Metropolitanate of Kyiv article may now be liberally sprinkled with "{Main|Foo}}" templates and duplicate material removed. Is that correct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Pbritti's comment suggested a Wikipedia:Summary style coverage change, and I saw where you inquired (but were not answered) elsewhere for similar, but that's as far as that goes; certainly no consensus for what you're suggesting. Whether its warranted, I don't know, but there's no consensus for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitanate of Kyiv to use as justification if such a thing were attempted and then contested. - Aoidh (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

TPA of 184.170.72.107

They are abusing it per the edit filter log. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you also revoke TPA from User:TrollOnTheGo? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've revoked TPA for the IP; couldn't care less about what they say about me personally but the other names of living people in their screed was inappropriate and had nothing to do with requesting an unblock. As for User:TrollOnTheGo I'm not sure that single diff warrants revocation of TPA, but I'll add the page to my watchlist and keep an eye on it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. If you see TrollOnTheGo edit again, let me know. I am curious why a Sockpuppet account from 2015 randomly accused me of socking 8 years later. Odd. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Quick advice?

I wasn't sure who to reach out to on this, and as the most recent admin to reply on the Notifications of Edit Warring board, thought I'd start with you. Please let me know if there's somewhere better to go.

On Dead Sea Scrolls, the category "Archaeological discoveries in Israel" was added on April 2, 2021 by another editor. This category persisted alongside the "...in Palestine" and "...in the West Bank" categories until a couple days ago. At that time, an editor deleted the Israel category but left the other two intact. I reverted, mentioning the complex sovereignty status of the West Bank / Qumran, with dual claims by Palestine and Israel, and the fact that Israel occupies, administers, and has named the site as an Israel Heritage site. I don't believe Wikipedians can decide only one's claim is valid without falling afoul of WP:POV, nor do I believe the assertion that the deletion of the past two days represents the consensus, rather than the edit that persisted for over two years.

Three more deletions (by two other authors) followed, and I restored a second and third time, stopping to avoid 3RR violation. Prior to these restorations I asked the editors involved to discuss on Talk, but so far they have not responded with any constructive dialogue. I then posted notices to the Israel and Palestine Wikiproject pages to invite more discussion.

The question is: am I doing something wrong here? What would the best approach be? And, can a group of editors collectively be guilty of 3RR? I believe these editors are incorrect to delete the Israel category unless they simultaneously delete the Palestine one. Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jtrevor99: I'm happy to take a look. At the moment it looks like the talk page discussion is still ongoing and hasn't stalled, and if you've looped in the WikiProjects you mentioned then outside editors will also be able to weigh in. My strongest advice would be to not revert again unless and until you know that there is a consensus in favor of inclusion, especially since at this point we know its contested and that three different editors have reverted your three edits so continuing to revert isn't going to see the content added, and would only risk a block. I don't know the details of the dispute outside of what I just read on the talk page, but I would suggest finding reliable sources (preferably independent sources) that that describe it as an archaeological discovery in Israel, and using that as a basis for why it should be added. That's going to be the strongest case you can put forth, with evidence-backed factual statements.

I don't think it's currently at a point where administrative action is necessary, and please don't take this the wrong way, but at this point you're the editor that stands to be blocked the quickest if the edit warring continues, given that you've made (and stopped right at) 3 reverts within 24 hours, and this edit summary makes it clear that you're aware of the policy on edit warring. For now stick to the talk page, present evidence in the form of (ideally independent) reliable sources that verify that the inclusion of the category would be warranted, and seek consensus per WP:BRD, and to seek dispute resolution methods such as WP:DRN and WP:RFC if necessary, but as the header at DRN makes clear, it should be thoroughly discussed on the talk page before considering that route. - Aoidh (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Yes, I have no intention to make a fourth revert per the policy, and don't see that it would be constructive given the current status even if I did. I'm puzzled why additional research would be needed when it is already established via RSs that Israel has a claim on the geography (though Israel simultaneously acknowledges there are multiple state claims), nor why restoration of a 2-year-old consensus (with archived discussions to back it up) requires justification, rather than deletion of that consensus. However, I'm content to see what other editors have to say. Thanks for your quick response! Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Polybius (urban legend)

Since Scott The Woz has a Wikipedia article, could I add the fact that the series' first Halloween special was themed around Polybius? HaydenTCEM (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@HaydenTCEM: The issue isn't whether there's a Wikipedia article or not, since two notable things can have a trivial relationship with each other. The issue is whether adding an entry to Polybius (urban legend)#In popular culture can meet MOS:POPCULT or not. Essentially, it needs an independent reliable source showing that this Halloween special is an example of the cultural impact or "in popular culture" aspect of the entry; a source showing only that the example exists and isn't culturally significant isn't sufficient, so a YouTube link to the video doesn't show that it's culturally significant, only that it exists. It would need sources similar to the other two entries currently in that section, and a quick search online didn't find anything like that for this entry. - Aoidh (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for DYK review

Hi, sorry for bothering, but can you please help me do a DYK review at Template:Did you know nominations/Tianzhou 6? Seems like no one has interest in reviewing it. Thanks! Timothytyy (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Timothytyy: I'll keep an eye on it, but it's only been a few days since May 11, there are still unreviewed DYK noms from April 10 that are in the queue, it's not unusual t all for a nomination to go a few days without being reviewed. - Aoidh (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

May music

May songs

my story today

Thank you for DYK help! - My story today is that 300 years ago, Bach became Thomaskantor, with BWV 75, writing music history. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's done

I filled out all the references with reliable sources like you told me to. Thank you for the pointers! AlphaRex1984 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlphaRex1984: I do want to stress that I didn't tell you to add the sources in my comment, but it looks like a lot of effort went into adding additional sources across many different pages and the edits look really good, great job! Adding reliable sources for verifiability is one of the most important things that can be done for an article; it's important that readers can find the source of the information themselves and your edits that make easier for them, so thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Either way, thanks for pointing me to the VG Wikipedia project. You're a good admin. Alright, bye bye. AlphaRex1984 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please review John Onuigbo for wikipedia

Haven written and edited the new page John Onuigbo. I need you to auto patrol the page after review. Thanks and waits for your reply.Christbueze (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I am done editing the following page and needs auto patrolling from you. Charles Ndukauba Foris Labs Christbueze (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Christbueze: I don't believe that those pages need to be patrolled by me personally, especially as I am not a member of WP:NPP so I would have to defer to their judgement and experience in reviewing those pages. I think the confusion might be that I have the Autopatrolled user right, which applies to pages that I create (articles I create are not added to the queue for pages needed patrolling) rather than anything to do with reviewing other pages. - Aoidh (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

69.115.104.232 (Unicorn Vandal)

You need to block this IP indefinitely. I don't cxare if they DON'T think Unicorn: Warriors Eternal is not adult animation. Williams Street or no Williams Street, if it's on Adult Swim, then it technically IS adult animation. And seeing as they don't have anything to prove otherwise, that makes them a vandal and a liar to boot. In short, this IP was the one who started it. Visokor (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to block them any more than I am going to block you for the same behavior, and I certainly won't block them indefinitely. They are removing unsourced content, and per WP:BURDEN they have no obligation to prove otherwise. Looking at the editing history of that article it looks like that "adult" descriptor has been contested off and on for about as long as the article has been around. If you want the descriptor added the burden is on you to show that it belongs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a reliable source that directly and unambiguously supports that descriptor. Saying that because it's in a certain programming block that it falls into a specific genre looks like WP:OR. It is not vandalism to disagree with an unsourced opinion. Use the talk page and provide sources for the content. - Aoidh (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Visokor: I would also strongly encourage you to refrain from calling them a liar or a vandal in comments or edit summaries moving forward; it is WP:UNCIVIL at best and can be seen as an WP:ASPERSIONS issue; none of the edits I've looked at fall under WP:VANDTYPES so to call them a vandal isn't accurate and it is wholly inappropriate to call them a liar simply because of a difference of opinion. - Aoidh (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Bit of an unrelated question: Why am I seeing "mobile edit" tags on my watchlist in Punjabi? Visokor (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you're saying that on the English Wikipedia you're seeing something like ਮੋਬਾਈਲ ਸੰਪਾਦਨ on the end of edits, it's possible that it's part of the edit summary. If you're seeing that as a tag specifically and not as the edit summary, I don't know why it would be in that language, that might be a question for Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you're asking why things are tagged as mobile edits on the Punjabi Wikipedia, then that would be because the edits were determined to have been made from a mobile device (or at least one that is displaying a user agent that matches a mobile device). - Aoidh (talk)

This more-so stems from the fact that this and the upcoming My Adventures with Superman TV series were originally going to premiere on Cartoon Network's ACME Night block but instead got shifted to Adult Swim at the last minute. I at first was against the addition of the adult animation label but when I went read the article for it, it appears to under some degree validate its focal point of it being simply audience demographic. Space Ghost Coast to Coast aired on Adult Swim had this label for a long time but it can be argued that its contents are as tame as these aforementioned series.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The point is that it needs a reliable source that says it; if we read an article and make our own conclusion that a genre would make sense, that is our own analysis and conclusion which is WP:OR; it needs reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Request Unicorn article to be locked again. Even though a source has been found (does IndieWire count?), this IP address user is STILL refusing to listen. Visokor (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a month and blocked that specific IP for 72 hours, since it seems they did not feel up to using the talk page to discuss, and it looks like that's not the only article they're edit warring at. - Aoidh (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this, but the non-believer is at it again over at the list of adult animated series of the 2020s. Might need to semi-protect that one too... Visokor (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP one month for edit warring immediately after the block expired. However the phase the non-believer is a bit off-putting; they're edit warring, it's got nothing to do with belief. If they return I would suggest reporting them to an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:ANEW for edit warring or WP:RFPP for requesting that a page be protected. Thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

June music

June songs

my story today

Thank you for help with DYK! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Gansen-ji

On 13 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gansen-ji, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Japanese Buddhist temple of Gansen-ji has a 275-centimeter-tall (9.02 ft) statue of Amitābha Buddha that was created in the year 946? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gansen-ji. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gansen-ji), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Your block of 185.200.251.166

You might want to revoke talk page access and extend the block to the entire range.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them use the talk page for making an unblock request, but on reading WP:TPA I think I was being overly cautious on not revoking TPA and should have just removed it right from the start given the part of WP:TPA that says editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats (emphasis added). So, talk page access has been revoked and I'll take a look at the range, thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, I mentioned you at WP:ANI#Martdj, Martin Kulldorff, and odd crusade.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I also saw your ping and have responded at AN/I. - Aoidh (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Aoidh/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Notrealname1234 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Notrealname1234: The edit in question does not meet WP:RD2 because RD2 does not cover "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations, which that edit appears to fall under. - Aoidh (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

does it violate WP:RD3 then? Notrealname1234 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't rise to the level of harassment, which is the only part of RD3 that might apply. - Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation

Hi there- the cited source for that entry is a industry standard review journal, the equivalent of a scientific paper for the publishing industry. I'm not sure why that isn't considered an acceptable source. 107.223.196.121 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to this, in which case the edit was reverted because the source doesn't verify that the individual went to that school. That the person exists is not in question, but if you're going to claim that the individual is an alumna of the school, you need to provide a reliable source stating that. That source does not, so it doesn't matter how good of a source it is, it doesn't verify the claim being made. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

181.41.56.18

181.41.56.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, you blocked this IP for disruptive editing a few days ago. The block has expired and since then the editor has been quite prolific in making more disruptive edits, mostly subtle vandalism, changing dates and names in articles related to children's TV shows. In all the cases I've checked, the changes have been factually incorrect or nonsensical. They probably need a longer block. CodeTalker (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done they've been blocked for 3 weeks for connoting the same problematic edits after their block expired. - Aoidh (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You've been pinged!

I have pinged you in the talk page of an Article I manage where a person has made disruptive comments and edited them. --FranzSebastianvH (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@FranzSebastianvH: I've revdel'd the problematic content and temporarily blocked the editor for BLP violations. - Aoidh (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you FranzSebastianvH (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

User:67.149.160.101

Could you take a look at this ip's edit [:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1169757172]? It appears that this ip tripped filter 172 on Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics 6 times back on August 6th. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears that this ip is removing sourced content from Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics Untamed1910 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Untamed1910: Edit filter triggers from before the article was protected aren't going to be cause for anything moving forward, not from me at any rate. During the protection the IP made an attempt to discuss the content on the talk page. Other than this lone comment you haven't responded to any of their talk page comments in any way; now would be an ideal time to do so, and to use dispute resolution if necessary. This would be a good time to also read WP:ONUS and try to obtain a consensus for or against the content on the talk page. The page was protected in lieu of blocking editors in the hopes that the talk page would be utilized to obtain a consensus, but since that has not happened then continued edit warring will be scrutinized to see if blocks would be needed to prevent further disruption, and this applies both to editors removing and adding the content. - Aoidh (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User Aimilios92

I'm afraid that Aimilios92 who you recently blocked for (among other things) personal attacks seems to have learned little from the experience [4]. But perhaps I am being oversensitive here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

And now this [5]. I'm now pretty sure I am not being oversensitive in this case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm unfortunately not available to take any sort of administrative actions due to being away for bit, so I would recommend asking another administrator about this, if possible. Aoidh (Away) (Aoidh's talk) 12:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I was able to make time today to take a look and have blocked them for continuing the behavior that led to the first block. - Aoidh (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

He's still here

Soon after you protected the pages I mentioned in my complaint, that IP editor restored his edits on another article [6]. Basically he doesn't regard any rebooted revivals of an old show as a reboot, but as a continuation or new season. I've reverted him for now but I'm sure he'll just return.

I know I said I'll seek RFPP, but that'll clearly be of no use. I'm going to ask you or other admins to disable the anon editing if they revert on more pages. I'll wait until next month for that however, I hope you will listen if there's no other way left.

Shifting IP ranges is much more harder than shifting to other pages, I checked and their IP range's ISP has switched from Verizon to Comcast and location from Virginia to Maryland. Don't know if they shifted locations, use a VPN now or are on a mobile connection. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I've protected that page for now as well, but I'm not sure what you mean by disable the anon editing. - Aoidh (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I meant disabling editing unless a person on that range creates an account. An account will be required to edit Wikipedia. I was never asking for a full block. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They've already demonstrated that blocking a range in this way wouldn't do anything. It wouldn't help, and would only have downsides. Before you reported them they were on one range, then they were on an entirely different range, then per above they're on a different provider in a different state. I get that you want something to be done, but this isn't the answer. - Aoidh (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really. They've only actually shifted the range now and after being complained four times in a row. I doubt they'll be doing it again or at least doubt they'll do it quickly. Their range was blocked twice in past and they didn't shift their IP. So they're certainly not good at it. Please at least give it a try if this continues for a long while. Protecting pages also prevents innocent IP users from editing them without an account. And we can't keep protecting endlessly. I know this seems bad, but there's no other way to stop him. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If despite all this you think it's a bad idea, I'll keep reporting pages he edit wars on to you, but it's better to try to find a more permanent solution and listen to my request. It's upto you. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant let me know if those two pages that I protected need reprotecting, not every page that this LTA edits. Rangeblocking for long periods to try ot stop an IP editor who has shown that it is demonstrably trivial for them to change to a new range isn't a permanent solution, not even is it a temporary one. That said I have rangeblocked 2601:14C:8000:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 2 weeks; that means if they can't move ranges then they shouldn't be an issue for 2 weeks. If they keep editing despite that 2 week rangeblock, then a 6 month+ rangeblock wouldn't work either. - Aoidh (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Aoidh. If they shift their IP range while being blocked, I promise not to ask you or any admin again about blocking their range. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ball Ground, Georgia wording

Hi Aoidh,

I'm not a native speaker. May you please help me with the formulation?--U. M. Owen (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this I don't think a change anything like that is needed, because the wording reflects the source. The source doesn't say anything about the city being septic-only, and the change also doesn't reflect the main thrust of the source's point; that the sewage system needs addressing in order to expand the city, which also is the point of that paragraph in the article itself. - Aoidh (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Aimilios92

Hi - just a courtesy note to inform you that I'm taking over your block on Aimilios92 due to extensive and disruptive block evasion. They haven't learned any lessons (and I expect we'll see them again soon - they don't stick to one range). Girth Summit _(blether) 17:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for the heads up, it's unfortunate that this is the route they chose to take, but c'est la vie. - Aoidh (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I very much doubt whether that was their first account... Girth Summit _(blether) 17:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, after I started looking a bit more into it and seeing things like the recent AN discussion I see that. Aoidh (Away) (Aoidh's talk) 17:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Dračevica

Hello,

I have noticed that you added protection to the Dračevica article, which is good, but just before you did that, AzureCitizen made an edit which matched Santasa99 line of disruptive edit warring as shown here:

1. Dračevica 1
2. Dračevica 2
3. Dračevica 3

I have asked to revert his edit, but even if he was willing to do so, he is now unable to because of the added protection. That is why I am now asking you to revert the article back to my last attempt at a stable and correct version - Dračevica

Otherwise, Santasa effectively bypasses the ban on making 3 consecutive reverts.

I hope that you will consider my request.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.123.180 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk page and get a consensus for your proposed changes, short of certain policy violations there is no such thing as a "correct" version. - Aoidh (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

My edits were reverted 4 times in a 24 hour period. If I remember correctly, that is a policy violation 93.87.123.180 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to WP:3RR, note that the three-revert rule applies per person. One editor made 3 reverts, you made 3 reverts, and another made 1. In part because 3RR was not violated, the page was protected in lieu of blocking editors so that discussion could take place on the talk page, which again I highly suggest you use because if editors had been blocked instead you would have been included in those blocks. Please take this time to use the talk page on those two articles, get a consensus, and use dispute resolution if necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

So basically, two or more editors can team up against one editor and push their view point by using reverts without breaking any rules? That does not sound right, especially considering that I did everything to not to break the three-revert rule. When AzureCitizen made the 4th edit, I could have made my 3rd counter-edit and still be within the rules, but I did not. I wanted to be fair, so I contacted AzureCitizen and politely asked him to undo his revert. He did not answer my message.

If this is the norm in Wikipedia, it would appear that the rules only exist so those who are familiar with them can exploit them against those who are not familiar with the rules. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page, I'm not going to block the editors that disagree with you just because they both happen to disagree with you; there is not evidence of any sort of coordinated tag-team edit warring going on, and 3RR is not an entitlement to make 3 reverts per day so you were edit warring just as much as the other editors. The pages are protected in a way that prevents further edit warring and the talk pages are open and awaiting comments. - Aoidh (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not asking you to block anyone. I am asking you to revert the article to my last version. Santasa edit warred to remove the sourced content that I added. AzureCitizen effectively helped him achieve his goal. Looking at his contributions and recent interests, it is extremely odd that he just happened to find his way to a minor medieval Balkan article. They had a total of 4 reverts, I had a total of 2 reverts. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

My role in this is to prevent further edit warring, not to enforce a particular viewpoint, so I cannot and will not revert to your preferred version just as I will not do that for them. Per WP:BRD, use the article's talk page and get a consensus for your edits. Since it is now well established that the content added is contentious, that is the way to get the article to include the content that you want. - Aoidh (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not know the full extent of an administrator's duties, but logic dictates that they should act against policy violations.

AzureCitizen showed up out of nowhere and made the 4th revert so Santasa would not break the three-revert rule. That in of itself is suspicious, but it does not end there.

How did he find out that the article was being edited? He has not edited that article before. He was not contacted by Santasa on his user and talk pages.

Why did he suddenly decide to agree with Santasa's point of view? Looking at his contributions, he has not made any edits regarding the Middle Ages in Southeastern Europe going as far back as I checked - I checked the year 2023.

He somehow learned that an article was being edited, and even though it's clearly not something he is familiar with, decided to side with one particular editor. This was done after Santasa filed his report against me. Well timed so that if the article in question did receive protection, the version they pushed would be the one that would be protected.

Tell me that it does not sound suspicious. Tell me that it's completely honest, made in good faith and within policy.

The talk page and reaching a consensus are great, but in the meantime, it is not right that the version pushed by such actions should stand. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edits fall within the scope of the same policy violations that you're alluding to, and protection of the pages in their current state is acting to prevent further disruption. I will repeat here what I said at the notice board, Let me be clear, you and the IP were not blocked only so that you could discuss the content on the articles. If either of you deign to not use the talk page and merely wait out the protection to revert back to your preferred version you will be blocked for edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I explicitly stopped at two revert edits and no third party acted on my behalf. How could it be the same? 93.87.123.180 (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You made 3 reverts at Ljubuški Fortress, the same as the other editor. Arguing about how their edit warring was more edit warring than yours is not going to affect anything, even if it was an accurate assessment. The edit warring was dealt with by protecting the pages so in lieu of blocks so that discussion can take place, something both of you have yet to do. Unless you have evidence in the form of diffs or other concrete evidence that an editor explicitly acted on behalf of another editor and didn't just agree with their edit, it would be a good idea to refrain from making those accusations moving forward, to avoid the appearance of WP:ASPERSIONS. Speculation is not evidence. My advice is stop trying to get me to do anything regarding taking a side in any way, because I will not. Use that time instead to use the article talk pages, because that is the only productive way to achieve what you'd like to achieve on the articles. - Aoidh (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, I did make 3 reverts in Ljubuški Fortress article. However, I must point out that I made this thread for Dračevica article. I guess that my attention went fully towards it in the heat of the moment. I will do my best to look at the whole picture, refrain from speculation and open up talk pages as soon as time and energy permit. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

3rr

With respect to [7], please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Best_known_for_IP -- it's a WP:DUCK. --JBL (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Thanks for that context, I was not aware of that LTA. I actually have to head out and can't look into the details at the moment but if the SPI issue isn't looked at by another admin by the time I get back I'll look into that. - Aoidh (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. --JBL (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: After looking at the behavioral evidence and comparing it to the LTA behavior I've blocked them. - Aoidh (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hi Aoidh! I just wanted to ask you whether it violates any WP policy if someone repeatedly accuses me of pushing a POV on Wikipedia, in other words, for being here only for promotion of a certain propaganda, without any explanation or evidence regarding how come so? Also what should I do in that case? Thanks! Sutyarashi (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Especially if I face something like this. Sutyarashi (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Depending on the specifics it might fall under Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. I would read specifically Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? and then Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Responding to personal attacks. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for advising. Do accusations of having bias, being a POV pusher, vandalising Wikipedia or being a Sockpuppet constitute personal attacks? Sutyarashi (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If they continue (without providing evidence) I would politely ask them to stop on their talk page. If they persist then the continued conduct may be considered personal attacks, in which case it may be warranted to open a discussion about the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, while being sure to provide diffs of the conduct in question. - Aoidh (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks. I will keep this in mind from now onwards. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks...

for catching my mistake at WP:ANEW and fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help :) - Aoidh (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued vigilance

The two Jat guerrilla warfare contestants will get themselves both blocked for a long period I think 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully they start using the talk page and obtaining consensus when disagreement is made known before it gets to that point. - Aoidh (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-edit warring

Hi Aoidh! User:CrashLandingNew has re-started edit warring and reverting at List of Punjabi Muslims amidst the talk page discussion without any consensus.[8] Sutyarashi (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I've not. Kindly go through the history of the page. I've only reverted changes(that too not by Sutyarashi) made on the page by another user regarding the topic which is under discussion on the talk page. My edit summary was precise in letting the others user know about the discussion.

The intresting thing is that these changes, made during our block period, were regarding the same topic we were discussing. Uncanny. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You should've avoided reverting anyone on the pages under dispute, since the talk page discussion was going on. However, you didn't, even after what Aoidh told. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I advise that you both use WP:DR of some kind to help come to a resolution, or perhaps leaving a neutrally-worded message at the relevant WikiProject(s) for the articles in question. - Aoidh (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that'd be the right option. However, I find it pretty odd that, in my case, I had got blocked when I reverted to the original version when it was changed without using talk page. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Reversion is necessary when the edit is related to the topic under discussion on the talk page. Why that user did it during our block period is still puzzling. CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your kind note on my talk page. You have been great to work with over the years, definitely part of the solution, not part of the problem. If you feel like dropping me a note: wikieditor07.sca9z@ncf.ca - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rupavahini

The IP-hopping vandal at the Rupavahini redirect is doing is thing again. I don't know why the insistence on vandalising it, but I'd recommend a permanent semi-protection. Urbanoc (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: I'm currently away so I'm unable to do any sort of administrative actions at the moment; I would suggest taking the matter to WP:RFPP. - Aoidh (Away) (Aoidh's talk) 07:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Piri

Hi! When you archived the references in Piri, did you do them manually or did you use a tool? Launchballer 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Launchballer: A tool was used, in this case Meta:InternetArchiveBot. You can usually tell when scripts or tools are used because either the edit summary or a tag will mention it. In this case the tag mentions IABotManagementConsole (WP:IABotManagementConsole redirects to User:InternetArchiveBot), but when it's a script it's usually included in an edit summary (example). - Aoidh (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a script I can use, because I've added 71 since and it's going to be a pain to do them manually.--Launchballer 00:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I see from following the 'configure' button on User:InternetArchiveBot that use of it is limited to admins. Any chance you could rearchive it?--Launchballer 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I haven't used it myself, but you don't need to be an administrator to use IABot. Read the documentation here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I thought configure meant use.--Launchballer 05:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Sorry I was unavailable for a few days when you replied so I asked on Discord if someone could respond for me, but I see that you got it working. Good luck with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piri/archive1! - Aoidh (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ANEW comment

Hi there. I saw your findings re: Oncamera. I respect your uninvolved opinion. My feedback is that their WP:NOTTHEM (sure, technically they weren't appealing a block) responses, and your also calling them out for their accusations, make a warning seem to me to be quite lenient for a repeat offender. The net is that two previous EW blocks still didnt make them respectful of the EW policy here and now. If they hopefully realize the generosity granted and finally see the light, then it can be a net positive. Cheers, and kudos for a thankless job patrolling noticeboards. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

About the 24 hour block

Hello Aoidh, about the 24 hour block for the Barbary slave trade edit. Please look at the edit history, I didn't add the paragraph: "A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that almost 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the Caucasus obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700." It was already there but near the end of the wikipedia article, I just wanted to put that paragraph in the context of the "Extent" sub-section where the numbers and statistics are. But M.Bitton kept deleting my edit so I had the idea of a "Barbary pirates in the wider Ottoman slave trade context" sub-section where that paragraph would have fit in perfectly especially since at the start I put this informatiom from the The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682 "Although the regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli were technically under Ottoman suzerainty, the Ottomans exercised very little real authority in deciding specific raids of the Barbary pirates."

Another thing the user that reported me, M.Bitton started insulting me and calling me "asinine": Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Talk:Barbary slave trade#The section talking about the numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles slaves is being pushed at the end of the article and not at the start where the numbers are being talked about

After I got the 24 hour block he deleted this text that was sourced from The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804 : " Of these European slaves, it's estimated that fewer than 5% escaped or were ransomed. From 1520 to 1830, Algiers alone imported about 625,000." It talked specifically about the Barbary pirates and not the Ottomans in general. He deleted it without explaination. This deserves a report if he continues to delete that information.

Good day. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ninhursag3: I did examine the edit history of that article before you were blocked. You were blocked for violating WP:3RR, which is defined as An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. With that in mind, on October 26 you made 4 reverts:

• At 14:05 content was removed that was added in this diff (and brought to its current form in this diff). You also added the word Historian to describe Robert Davis.
• At 15:55 the same content is removed again while also adding other content.
• At 19:19 the same content is removed again while also adding other content.
• At 19:43 content was restored that was removed in this edit and the Historian descriptor is restored (undoing this edit).

So while you were not the original author of the "2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles" text (that would be this edit in 2014), you did restore it after it was removed, reverting another edit. Once it was known that there is a dispute about specific content, reverting should ideally stop and the talk page utilized to find a consensus, using forms of dispute resolution if needed.

As far as the asinine comment, they did not call you asinine, they called this edit asinine, an edit that starts by saying You've had enough only when you got embarrassed that you misunderstood that quote. That is hardly civil commentary and you cannot know their state of mind, so that comment was unnecessarily inflammatory and served no good purpose; there is a very good reason why Wikipedia:No personal attacks begins with Comment on content, not on the contributor. Furthermore, if calling a comment asinine is a personal attack then why was this tit-for-tat response made? I see some less-than-exemplary commentary on that talk page, but it is by no means limited to M.Bitton. - Aoidh (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"You were blocked for violating WP:3RR, which is defined as An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

Sorry, I didn't know about rule WP:3RR, I've been a wikipedia editor for less than a year.

The text "2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles" was only removed after I wanted to put it in the statistic and numbers paragraph and not somewhere at the end of the article, like you said, this text is from 2014, so 9+ years, almost 10 years. If I wouldn't have put it near the start of the article, no one would have cared, like they didn't care for almost 10 years.

After my comments were called " asinine" I copied his negative comment in order to not say a bigger insult. Other than replying with the insult he said first, I abstained from insulting him because I wanted to remain polite even if he was antagonistic towards me during the whole comment exchange.

Anyway, this text "Of these European slaves, it's estimated that fewer than 5% escaped or were ransomed. From 1520 to 1830, Algiers alone imported about 625,000" is from The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804., Chapter 6: White Servitude, page 153. Is it okay to undo his removal since it talks specifically about the Barbary pirates and not the Ottoman slave trade in general? And how about the "Barbary pirates in the wider Ottoman slave trade context" sub-section? Is it okay to restore it in the article? Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Other than replying with the insult he said first, I abstained from insulting him because I wanted to remain polite, I do want to stress again that this edit is not polite in any way; their calling your comment asinine was predicated upon that initial incivility, and mocking them by copying their own comment is also not polite in any way. This is precisely why WP:NPA stresses to comment on content, not the contributor, as it derails discussions and is neither helpful nor compatible with a collaborative editing environment. As for the content itself, I cannot comment on that because that would involve me in the dispute which would bar me from acting further in an administrative capacity regarding that dispute. If necessary I would suggest using a form of dispute resolution if you'd like outside input. - Aoidh (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A dispute resolution would mean a third part, right? Or would it need voting from more people? I'm new to this, sorry. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Since that discussion is currently covering quite a bit of information, I would suggest making a comment on the talk page (perhaps in a subsection) specifically about this exact content and nothing else (do not comment about any other editors, stick to the content) and explain what content should be added, the sources that support it, why it is relevant to the scope of the article, and where in the article it would and how it would tie in to the surrounding information. If an agreement cannot be reached and no more than you and one other editor comments, then I would suggest using WP:3O (since the third editor that commented in the current discussion did not comment on this particular information) and going from there, but it must be discussed before WP:3O can be used. - Aoidh (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Third party* Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Links to Internet Archive but can't retrieve text

Hi Aoidh. In this edit you added 3 links to the Internet Archive. When I follow those links I am unable to see the text of the article. Are you able to retrieve the article text at IA? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nurg: Ah, sorry about that, I try to check for situations like that but that one slipped past me when I was doing those for DYK (if I remember right there was an issue with the bot where it accepted the request but didn't make the changes until much later, hours later I believe). Since ProQuest is behind a paywall the citation ideally should have had a subscription parameter set so that IABot would know not to archive those links, since all it's archiving is the "Preview unavailable" screen and not the content itself. I've removed those archive links since they're not actual archives of the content. - Aoidh (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for acknowledgement and speedy fix. Nurg (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IP-hopper admits to using residential proxies

See this abuse filter log entry for details. See the IP's abuse filter log as well. Eyesnore ^talk💬 13:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm keeping an eye on their activities. - Aoidh (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	NGL, That IP address was very annoying to deal with. That troll could still be hopping around but, thanks for defending Wikipedia! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 14:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Midori No Sora: Thank you, and thank you for keeping an eye on it as well! - Aoidh (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and vandalism

Hi. More than 90% of the contributions of the user User:Pedantic Aristotle are related to the politician Javier Milei. This is clearly an single-purpose account. But it's not just that, this user is also resorting to vandalism, as he has tried to extremely and massively delete information with sources from Javier Milei article. It's not the first time he's done it. He has also attempted to massively erase information with sources from the La Libertad Avanza article, a political coalition to which Javier Milei belongs. I show some examples of mass deletion of information with sources that this user has carried out:

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15] Uniru288 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that this comment has also been made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Single-purpose account and vandalism (Special:Diff/1183352914), I think it would be a good idea to handle it there, and I'll comment there. - Aoidh (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Aoidh. A serious problem it's happening in the article by Javier Milei and the article by Union for the Homeland. The user 'Pedantic Aristotle' is once again causing an edit war due to extreme and radical changes that he has made without any consensus in Javier Milei article. He had already been punished for it. Also 'Pedantic Aristotle' insists on adding the ideology 'fascism' in the article of the political coalition Union for the Homeland without absolutely any source. As I said in a previous report, the user 'Pedantic Aristotle' is a single-purpose account, more than 90% of his contributions are related to the politician Javier Milei and he has resorted to vandalism and mass deletion of information. When I reported the administrators' board, a suspicious user appeared to defend it: 'City of Silver'. Not only is he defending it, but he is also legitimizing his radical editions, without consensus and without sources, such as putting the 'fascist' ideology in the article of the political coalition Union for the Homeland. It seems very likely that the user 'Pedantic Aristotle' is a puppet of 'City of Silver'. You should look into that, Aoidh. I also think that you should increase the protection of the articles by Javier Milei and Union for the Homeland. Uniru288 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've combined this with the previous section since it's about the same thing. I have commented at the AN/I discussion, but that is the only thing I will do regarding this at the moment, mostly for the reasons I gave in my comment there. As for sockpuppetry concerns, those are handled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and should be addressed there (with evidence) to avoid running afoul of Wikipedia:No personal attacks (Specifically the type of personal attack that is Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.) The edit notice header for SPI reflects this concern, so if you suspect sockpuppetry you would need to gather evidence and open an investigation, but please do not accuse editors of or suggest that they are likely engaging in sockpuppetry without evidence. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully support an investigation into the allegation that Pedantic Aristotle and I are the same person. Because if we're not (and we're not), then my edits restoring PA's edits constitute the consensus User:Uniru288 has been demanding. City of Silver 21:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove a mentor

Hi! As the blocking admin, would you be so kind as to remove User:Iterresise from Special:ManageMentors? Folly Mox (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done so, though the edit summary was cut short which I'm assuming is just a quirk of that Special page. I didn't see anything in any page like Wikipedia:Growth Team features that specifically addressed removing blocked users, but between blocked users being removed previously, there being no other blocked editors in the list, and the You can remove mentors that violate community standards or policies instructions at the top it didn't seem controversial to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

IP 69

I think their talk page access should be revoked. About this IP they impersonated me in the sandbox last week asking an inappropriate question which I would never ask, which got them blocked for 6 months, and I think they made the User:1034Forest account to impersonate me in response to that block, which has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and impersonation. And now they seem desperate to want to get back on Wikipedia and edit again, but looking at their talk page's history, they impersonated you and in one edit they pretended to be an admin and have "secret admin powers". 1033Forest (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anything they've done yet warrants revoking TPA (per WP:TPA) but I am keeping an eye on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:JoeIsCool126410

i had been browsing sandbox edits as i usually do, and noticed this user was blocked. out of curiosity, i checked the block reason, saw talk page discussions, and i honestly think this might not be a sock judging by the edits. to my understanding, they most likely came across the individual who reported the IP to you, looked at their edits, and made their own opinion on it. purely speculative, of course. possibly review the block? i might be wrong, though DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 01:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually just commented on this on that editor's talk page. I won't go into the specifics per WP:BEANS, but the behavioral similarities between the editor and the IP, in addition to the account being created via ACC (often done when the underlying IP is blocked, which typically prevents normal account creation), make the connection obvious. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

fair enough. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 01:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Bigger Hippo

Could you remove TPA for this user? They're adding violations of NPA. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If it continues I'll revoke talk page access per WP:TPA, but if it's just a one-off comment directed at me it's probably not warranted just yet. I'll certainly keep an eye on it though. - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

November thanks

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) 10:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 10:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The concert was good, User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your answer: your recipes are good. I would not agree, however, that infoboxes are contentious on Wikipedia, because - as everybody reading it can easily tell - infoboxes are almost everywhere, - they are contentious only in a small corner of subjects, in articles by a small group of editors. I met the dispute in 2012, for Samuel Barber (where I opposed for redundancy, but understood within a day that the redundancy serves readers with different needs). Brian Boulton added a compromise to Chopin as a RfC result in 2015. I thought that would settle it, dreamer that I am ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript

What's the next step here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voynich_manuscript&oldid=prev&diff=1187718851 Would it be that I write an article which is then rejected? I note that there is already a good description of this notable tale here: https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/The_Return_of_the_Lloigor knirirr (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If you submitted the article via WP:AFC then reviewers could provide feedback as to whether the subject is notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article, which would need to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Notability has a specific definition on Wikipedia, and the Fandom page does not show that the subject is notable. - Aoidh (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

December music

December songs

story · music

Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl said something wise on his talk, - yes, regarding a soft(er) stance - or should I say more sympathetic? - towards infoboxes. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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) 11:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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) 21:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

... 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) 19:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The Alchemical Herbal and the Voynich manuscript

Hi, I am not very familiar with wikipedia, so it’s possible this discussion should be posted elsewhere; I apologize, if this is the case. A few days ago I edited the Voynich Manuscript page to add references to the Alchemical Herbal, a medieval Italian work that scholars Sergio Toresella and Alain Touwaide mentioned as a parallel to the Voynich herbal. My edits were removed and I’d like to know if there is anything I can do to reference Toresella and Touwaide in a more appropriate way, so that they needn't be removed. P marco (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What I would recommend is starting a section on Talk:Voynich manuscript and explaining how the content is relevant, and what independent sources there are that show that the content is relevant to the article's subject and significant enough within the scope of the article's subject to warrant inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I followed your adviced and posted a note in Talk:Voynich manuscript. If I understand correctly, Toresella and Touwaide are independent sources. I also linked a few pages from primary sources (medieval copies of the Alchemical Herbal). Please, let me know how to proceed. Thank you for your attention. P marco (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've responded at the article's talk page and hopefully others will be able to comment as well once they get a chance to take a look. - Aoidh (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Aoidh :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented on that page. - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hi, thanks for your help at Marla Maples and Lara Trump. I'm not entirely familiar with the CTOPS restrictions on here but it seems to me that the subjects of both those pages are controversial as they are connected to Donald Trump who no doubt is controversial. Not to mention that the subjects of both articles are BLPs and both articles just received an overwhelming amount of egregious vandalism. My question is would you consider making the semi-protection for both pages longer? Trump related pages seem like ideal vandalism targets. Jordan Crandell (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Those two articles both already have indefinite pending changes applied to them, which looking through the page histories seems to work okay, the semiprotection I applied was meant to be a short-term solution to stop the immediate offensive vandalism on the two pages. - Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that this recent slew of offensive vandalism proves that PC protection is not effective for both pages. Would you not agree? Jordan Crandell (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really, this is a short term burst of disruption that I can't find any other such egregious examples of ongoing vandalism on either page for at least the last year or more. Another administrator might disagree and you're welcome to suggest this at WP:RFPP but I don't think there's any established pattern of long term vandalism that would warrant a lengthy semi-protection on those pages at this time since PC seems to be working. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's ultimately your call, but thos seems like allowing the president to ride around a highly populated area in broad daylight completely unprotected and open to gunfire. I wish you would do more while you have the opportunity and before more damage is done. Jordan Crandell (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting this here for posterity for the archives. - Aoidh (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring after blonk for exacly the same.

Hi there, after their block expiration ([16]), they just happily continue with this. Sigh. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I've actually left the house for the evening so if it's something that requires something more immediate it might be better to comment on the initial ANEW thread if it's still up, or make a new one, as I don't log into my main account on devices that leave my house and could get taken and compromised, so I might not be available to take any administrative action for possibly the next 5-20 hours, just to give you a heads up. Aoidh (Away) (Aoidh's talk) 22:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

They haven't edited since, but I'll check back in later. - Aoidh (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Here they go: [17] - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for continued edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I restored the consensus version of the article. Cheers and thanks. - DVdm (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why block?

Why did you block certain pages so I cannot edit them anymore? I don't think they are related? 2001:448A:4009:13A4:DC9:691E:B9E2:39CD (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please reply 2001:448A:4009:13A4:DC9:691E:B9E2:39CD (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As the block log shows, per a request at WP:RFPP I added one article (Anna Nagase) to an already-existing list of pages that 2001:448A:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the IP range that you are editing from) has been blocked from editing due to issues with edits on certain articles from that range. If you have a specific change that you would like to propose on a certain article, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Edit requests#Making requests and using the edit request wizard to make that proposed change. - Aoidh (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I now understand but I think the articles you picked don't seem to make any relations at all 2001:448A:4009:13A4:9845:8322:7D0E:18CF (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh 2001:448A:4009:13A4:9845:8322:7D0E:18CF (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Aoidh! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. I liked the frost in this one (which showed up more than in most). Congrats on passing RfA this year, and best wishes with everything in the coming one! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for Aoidh, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thank you very much, I hope your holidays and the coming year are wonderful for you as well. - Aoidh (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Aoidh/Archives! Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

RV (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

メリークリスマス！ (Merry Christmas)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Aoidh, 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 2024. Happy editing, 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ACE2023 congratulations

Hello Aoidh, 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)

Oh my, what did you get yourself into? Break a leg, and all the best! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Aoidh! And good luck with all of those email messages! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and Liz: Thank you both very much! :) - Aoidh (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 Arbitration Committee

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)

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