User talk:Raladic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people

Can you please explain why the article is sufficiently different from the two you linked in the hatnote? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It is the umbrella term for it as some discrimination is targeted at both aromantic and asexual people alike.

It was mainly a starting point since the article on Discrimination against asexual people claimed that aphobia was just against asexual people, which is incorrect.

But if you feel the new page I created should instead just be a disambiguation page for starters as it doesn't have much content, that's fair too. Raladic (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You may want to create the Arophobia article instead (this currently points to a section of Aromanticism). Then aphobia would become a dab for both articles. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I just tagged the new page Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people as the more precise title per Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguationas a DAB page a bit earlier, since that's what is mainly is right now (though the intro-section explaining that aphobia encompasses both sub-topics still feels relevant to leave on the page) and per the precise title guidelines it still feels more appropriate to have the full text page be the page and aphobia just redirecting to it.

I don't think the content that is currently the sub-page on Aromanticism#Discrimination and cultural erasure is enough to need it's own page just yet, so I think for now having arophobia redirect into it is fine and I've added the disambiguation links accordingly for now.

Let me know what you think. Raladic (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Discrimination against asexual people. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Discrimination against asexual people. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Alalch E. 21:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, regarding this edit, please carefully review what you're restoring before you revert, especially when dealing with BLPs. Thanks! Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Noted, apologies that I missed that the birthplace was still unsourced, I saw you corrected it. Raladic (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy

Hello, Raladic, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Shushugah, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Shushugah}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of the material you added back is your WP:onus

Hello. I'm happy to work with you on Xenophobia in the United States. Since you are adding everything back that was never discussed in the first place, Wp:onus is yours personally. I have reservations about the npov, the unclear RS connections to xenophobia, and the issues with synonymous use of the term anti-immigration policies, especially in the Donald Trump section. You need to discuss before adding it.

I've made many edits in about 5 materially different ways and opened 3 discussions, but you decided to revert all without addressing the cited policy for any of them. And again WP:onus is clearly on the previous additions for much of it, not on my removal. There are no previous discussions on this article.

I've reverted back to my most recent edit, then I welcome you to manually revert any specific area and provide policy based reasons. Then we can discuss. I'll pause and wait for you.

If you just wholesale revert everything again without citing policies I'll consider that edit warring.

I look forward to making a good article with you. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:preserve is a strong motivating policy here also. The article needs much work. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In your reversion you've referred to yourself (as a different IP) as consensus of a previous editor which is a violation of WP:BADSOCK of pretend consensus.

Just saying something is WP:onus doesn't mean you can just go and remove content when it is generally agreed upon by the cited sources that some of the anti-immigration policies come from an origin of xenophobia by its very definition and thus passes the onus on inclusion. Raladic (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have control over my IP and it keeps changing this week for some reason. I'm petty clear on IP talk pages which ones are me, especially when edits by two IPs are ending up on the same page. There is other IP activity on that page that is not me, going back a ways, so there might very well be sock activity or something else, but it ain't me. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm eager to discuss anti-immigration vs xenophobia, including how that might affect a Trump admin section. I made a discussion section for it. There's been no discussion on the talk page until me, so yes, I do think you need to make, there, the argument for that Trump admin section. Then I can pick the section apart more glandularly, if you make a good argument in the first place.

As to my other edits, maybe address those at least a little, here or there. I think a made some pretty good edits in keeping with WP:preserve. The version you've restored is pretty bad in a number of ways. If like to quickly determine which of those things are least likely to get your revert, then we can snowball into the bigger things. Thanks. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I did reply on the article talk page with an article by the Washington post that links the two issues hand in hand, thus providing the Onus of why the inclusion of the section is relevant to the article.

What I mentioned above was because the words in your edit summary were "Made edit per user talk page of previous editor." which makes it looks to others that you are saying a different editor created the talk page content and you agree with it, which makes it appear as if there were two editors agreeing, which can be mistaken as sockpuppetry. Raladic (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That message refers to you. You were the previous editor on whose talk page I posted. I could have been more clear, sorry. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

When in doubt, diff. I should know that by now. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I must say, I'm really disappointed that you immediately went to trying to block my participation with a low stakes page protect, since I prefer to edit by IP. Like I said above, I made so many edits that I think you'd not revert. I can't even try to sweep up the little ones. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If you traced the time, you'd find that I requested the page protection right after your first re-reverted of the changes by @RolandR instead of following WP:BRD to avoid further WP:DISRUPTIVE editing.

You then did it again when you again re-reverted the changes a second time, despite my ask in the first edit summary to please first actually get consensus on the talk page, which requires you to wait for people to actually have a chance to respond and not just going and making the same changes again. Raladic (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries are a reply. RolandR's summary was "no improvement". That's flippant and I certainly can't expect he would go to the talk page. Editors simply don't, when they leave flippant edit summaries. They go by edit, revert, ignore. So I revert, and leave another detailed edit summary. That is discussion and that's why 3RR is the generic recommendation (so you eventually go to the talk page when things get sticky). Nevermind that I created the talk page preemptively. That article has zero concensus because it's never been discussed, so "you can't edit this without consensus" is a specious argument. Yes, it's true, but the process of finding consensus necessarily requires editing throughout. Wp:BRD. Read it again. You're treating it like it's regimented policy, instead of a theory of collaboration. A revert of a revert, with an applicable and detailed edit summary is BRD. 3RR is the policy. I revert a flippant revert once and you're trying to block me?

Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. A pattern, not an instance of two reverts. Bold, revert, and ignore is disruptive. Your own revert, if you actually put in a little effort, should have been to look at all the work I did, consider the edit summaries, which reference policy and the talk page for more, and then you add back the Trump admin section as a manual revert with a detailed edit summary. Reverting in one go 15 or so edits that are materially different in 5 ways is disruptive. It robs me of the effort I put into the edits you probably would like. You made no attempt, just jumped to revert with a specious summary, and then the shortest path to preventing my participation. It was easy, but did you accomplish anything or collaborate with an enthusiastic editor? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The way you do it is WP:BRDWRONG. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

And the you go and make your own lede edit. That was my suggestion and initial edit effort for the article. And there's an open talk page discussion about that. Where's your talk page message about it? You need concensus before you edit that. Do you see how that's hypocritical? And maybe you see how disenfranchised you've made me? You should be discussing my edit, not blocking me then making your own. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I have replied in the article talk page, presenting citations that show that the content is relevant to the topic of the article. That doesn't mean it can't be improved, but it means that you can't just go and erase it all because you don't like it in its entirety. Instead you should refine it or tag it.

The reason why I have improved the lead of the article is precisely because of your talk page request to do so and I agreed with that it can be improved, so I compared the existing lead to your change and made the change. Just like I re-included the change by another user about internments (which you had also erased in your second re-revert).

No one argued that all your changes were bad, but your actions were clearly disruptive and instead of improving things by tagging them or refining, you just erased large chunks and are now leaving large essays on peoples talk pages, so you may want to read WP:FILIBUSTER.

Please take the discussion to the article talk page so that it stops being splintered between here, the other editors user page and the actual article talk page where the central discussion on further changes should happen. Raladic (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If you aren't already aware, you might want to have a look at WP:ANI#Incivility_in_talk_and_edit_summaries_from_MrOllie,_ultimate_result_is_disruptive_editing. where there is some discussion of this IP user's editing. - MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor edits

I see you tagged two edits to Rainbow flag as minor while both edits changed the meaning and content of the prose; this is not correct use of the minor tag. Please read WP:MINOR carefully and only use it per the guidance. You should also consider leaving more descriptive edit summaries than "lnk"; see WP:EDITSUMMARY. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I tagged them minor as the understanding of

• correcting wikilinks

per WP:MINOR - in this case, correcting them to the now agreed upon term of the renamed page, but I hear your point that it does also technically change the prose. Raladic (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

LGBT Pride vs Gay Pride

Tnx for the edit to PFLAG's page. I almost reverted on assumption that back in 2004 the San Francisco parade was probably still called "Gay Pride", but then realized that your edit was to avoid a Wiki redirect and didn't affect the verbiage on a viewer's screen. (My wife & I were honorary grand marshals of Houston's Pride Parade in 2002, and I think locally it continued to be styled colloquially as Gay Pride rather than LGBT Pride for a number of years. Also when we joined P-FLAG in the early 1990's the initialism was GLBT rather than LGBT.)

And note that I wrote PFLAG's name with a hyphen, which I still tend to use for pronouncability. The hyphen was dropped with a restyling of the logo some years ago. Shortly thereafter a group from Houston was in DC advocating for hate crimes legislation and a waitress seeing my name tag asked "What is "Ploough?")

Irv Smith, Austin TX Casey (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of rainbow crossings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of rainbow crossings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

SPÖ leadership election

Hi,

do you know how "candidates" and "total votes" can be moved from center to align left ?

In the table code, it already shows up as "align left", but it's still center. Others are left-sided.

Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears correctly left-aligned to me and the results are correctly right aligned. Raladic (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the 2 words "candidates" and "total votes" are in the center on my tablet, not left. The names of the candidates are correctly on the left. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah the columns headers, you mean.

I think those can't be changed and are always center aligned - Help:Table#Horizontal alignment in cells Raladic (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah sh*t, but thanks. It would definitely look better if everything in the left column would be left-aligned ... Glasperlenspieler (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Hindu rate of growth: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Fürst (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Paul Fürst (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable Reference

Swanley (Parish, United Kingdom) - Population Statistics, Charts, Map and Location (citypopulation.de) https://citypopulation.de/en/uk/southeastengland/admin/sevenoaks/E04012399__swanley/

Was the reference used for the page and is the same reference used by Swanley Town Council who I work for! Swanleytowncouncil (talk) Swanleytowncouncil (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As you may have found on your User talk:Swanleytowncouncil#June 2023 page - I have added some links to what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia and there is no consensus for citypopulation.de - it would be preferred to reference the census bureau directly from https://www.ons.gov.uk/census.

please also note that I placed a warning regarding your username on your talk page and it appears you have been blocked for said username by an administrator now to address the concern. Raladic (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Split attraction model

Hi, one of the sources I added (https://www.aromanticism.org/en/news-feed/splitting-attraction-history-j4y96) was already cited at the bottom of the page under "further reading" before I edited the article. AUREA is one of the leading advocacy organizations for the aromantic community. Tdmurlock (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't split discussions, I already left a note on your user talk page about the revert.

And while I agree that AUREA is one of the leading advocacy organizations for Aromanticism, it didn't conclude what your concludion in the edit was, that came from the student blog, which is both primary and unreliable.

And while AUREA has some good resources, most of their content is also primary, which unfortunately without other supporting reliable secondary sources backing it up, also doesn't make it a good WP:RS and should only be used sparingly by itself. Raladic (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

When you posted on my talk page you said "If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page". I've added some additional sources demonstrating evidence of the split attraction model's controversy. Tdmurlock (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from LGBT. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Irrespective of whether a reference can be accessed or not, the sections of alternative terms contains subject that is NOT neutral. There is no "according to so and so" instead the description looks like the point of view of the editor who made the respective addition. Can you tell me why should I not tag the article for being non-neutral?

Note - Just a polite request for clarification Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Note - as of now the template is not reverted Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on WP:RS and when and when not attribution is required. In most cases when we have reliable secondary sources, no attribution to who said something is made.

The article is watched by many many users and the consensus is that it is written to Wikipedias standards and policies. Please first get consensus on the article talk page after you've read the policies on attribution.

Please also take a look at WP:DONTTEMPLATE. Raladic (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Discrimination sidebar

I recently added Ethiopia and Eritrea in Template:Discrimination sidebar. and you delete them. Why do you think they are not for talking about discrimination in spite the list says "Ethnic/national"? AsteriodX (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You have the wrong user - Please contact the person of this change which removed them. Raladic (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops!, sorry for the mistake. AsteriodX (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I am LGBT person and need help of the community

I am LGBT old man. I like to write biographies. 4 years ago I did the biography of the most famous transvestite in Argentina who suffered death threats during the military dictatorship for being LGBT. Articles about him have just come out in magazines in Argentina and they are preparing a series on his life. He is a third generation artist, his mother and grandmother was famous singers and actresses.

A well-known writer made the mother and grandmother Wikipedia and the mother also.

In the middle of that, an editor appeared and changed the name of the famous transvestite by his own decision, I complained and he reversed it. But later he attacked the biography of the mother and grandmother with absurd excuses. My friend complained and I also attacked him.  At this point I believe he does not like LGBT people (as most people that lives in Florida State), He is an explosive person.

He asked that the biography of the grandmother who was very famous last century be deleted, the other editors asked not to, they want it to be kept on Wikipedia, so he added on the page

"Stop accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop WP:HOUNDing me ! I am extremely upset over you and your comrades making ridiculous WP:ASPERSIONS against me in response to this AfD. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023"

and no one have said nothing wrong to him… Since that was not enough, now he accuses that all those who asked to KEEP are puppets?? and wrote this mentioning the 3 bios. ( He only asked deletion of Anita but I know he will return for one by one)

"Re: Anita Bobasso, Jorge Perez Evelyn, and Hilda Dehil

To the users involved in these subjects: please leave me alone! I'm upset over all the WP:HOUNDing and WP:ASPERSIONS cast against me in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Bobasso. Also, to watchers, if you're interested in the extent of this abuse, I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragazzodeitalia. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)".

I was very curious about his violent personality and opened his profile to find that he suffers from something similar to autism (asperberg syndrome) which justifies his explosive character and bad mood AND I FEEL SORRY ABOUT IT, but does NOT justify all the evil he wants to do and gets angry if they don't let him do what he wants.

Now he posts on his page that he has a lot of stress and will move away from wikipedia...but an hour later he comes back to write something else. It's incredible.

Can you help me to get him away from me? Let the biographies alone? I am sure next, he will attack again the “Jorge Perez Evelyn” bio because is LGBT (he is going against one by one)… I don't know everything about Wikipedia and I don't know what to do. I'm very frustrated and so is my friend.

Please help me I'm a very old LGBT. I hope your help! Thank you Ragazzodeitalia (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976). 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. 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

aspec

Even though you reverted my edits with regards to "aspec" meaning "asexual spectrum", these terms should still be discussed. Iterresise (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aromanticism (disambiguation)

The article Aromanticism (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Aromanticism (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aromanticism (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hi, Raladic. I wanted to make sure you understand why I declined your request for page protection for the article Adam and Eve. Most vandalism gets handled exactly the way you're doing it: keeping an eye on an article and reverting the problems as they occur. For the most part, this works out fine. Page protection is generally reserved for times when the problematic edits are hitting so fast that simple reverts become really difficult. Here is an example from an article that another admin protected, that shows rapid-fire vandalism from multiple accounts and IPs. Joyous! Noise! 05:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joyous!: - It's a designated contentious topic per WP:ARBPS, so WP:CTOP applies, which includes standard set including increased page protection, I have warned the user that you pointed out that semi wouldn't have fixed, about it. But nonetheless, if you look at the history of the article, it is literally just a series of repeated vandalisms until semi at least shut most of that down with the summer protection that just expired.

So whether you protect it now, or in a week, it will be back on RPP in short order for sure, with just extra work for users to remove the vandalism, so I think it's time to invoke CTOP and protect it for good. Raladic (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User Warnings

Hey this is a bit belated but I'd like to ask you please be mindful of how and when you warn new users or IPs. This was a little heavy for an editor who made one reversion and was by all accounts communicative in edit summaries. There's precious little guidance on using UWs and I won't pretend for a moment that you've violated any policy I'm aware of but regardless please give new editors a little more slack. Thank you for your time. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted - Fair. It appeared to me without a warning that the user would have ran straight into 3rr as both their initial change and the first revert of your change were very strongly worded in WP:IMRIGHT territory, so I figured warning them early rather them running into 3rr was the right call of action based on my judgment call at the time. But I hear you about considering grace. Thanks for your note. Happy editing. Raladic (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Transgender

All of my edit have valid sources. Why did you revert them? Please help meRudrik88 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your message. I read your message and I want to talk about it. I Joined Wikipedia in few days ago, and I do not have much experience. I only want to add some countries to the "Legality" section (because only two or three countries in this section). Can you revert my edit, if some sections are incorrect, you can remove them. Please!Rudrik88 (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the guidance I gave you on your talk page, you can raise an edit request on the article talk page for changes and someone will review them and can add them to the article. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!Rudrik88 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"slurred names"

Please do not retcon the citation record as you did here. The name of the journal when the publication happen is what should be used, not updated names. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Raladic, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you are interested in helping us to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. When you feel inspired to create your first biography of a woman, you'll find some useful tips in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307 Online events: New: Press women | Alphabet run U, V & W | Central and Eastern Europe Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Wikimedia CEE Spring 2024 - contest with certificates of participation and prizes The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sentence case

Whatever the outcome of all this is, the title should be in sentence case - queerphobia does not take a capital q. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 18:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, good point. Moving it now to sentence case. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks for commenting on my help page

much appreciated Peckedagain (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Good edit, wrong reason

Hi, Raladic. Thanks for your edit at Feminism, which was an appropriate change which improved the article. But there was a problem. Your edit summary was:

Replace two noun uses of female with women since females as a noun is often dehumanizing and disparaging, refer to Female#Etymology and usage.

This gets the reasoning for this beneficial edit all wrong, and is not a sufficient justification to make the change that you did, for multiple reasons: it amounts to your original opinion, is backed only by reference to another Wikipedia article which is an unreliable source, and it sounds like some kind of private campaign. It was still the right move, but not for that reason, but for a different one: even though the source in question (Roberts (2017)) used both words, including the term females without any of the kind of dehumanizing tone that you claimed in your edit summary, the source also used the word women, and used it more often, and more to the point used women in the context of the dress standards being discussed in the part of the source which was being summarized at that point in the article.

So, the edit was an improvement, but for the wrong reason: the right reason is WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, which is the part of our WP:No original research policy. Going forward, please base your changes exclusively on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. And once again, thanks for your edit to Feminism. Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I’ll keep it in mind to make sure my edit summary is accurate and in line with the policies as you called out. Raladic (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

My undo on the No queerphobia talk page was unintentional, must have hit something while dragging my cursor. (I was surprised when I hit my watchlist and saw I'd edited the article, but you beat me to fixing it.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah no worries, happens to all of us sometimes. Raladic (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music | Alphabet run X, Y & Z Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon June 2024 - Going Back in Time The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Find a Grave is NOT a reliable source (as it is user-generated content). It can be used to look for biographical clues. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

• Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

• Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor

• In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say

• News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

• Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies

• Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth

• Featured content: We didn't start the wiki

• Essay: No queerphobia

• Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!

• Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer

• Comix: The Wikipediholic Family

• Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

• Concept: Palimpsestuous

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pride flag

Why did you revert my edit as "not linked to the LGBT community", while there are other similar flags in the article, also not related to LGBT, such as Leather pride flag? Trang Oul (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, last time Talk:Pride flag#Polyamory and Leather Flags, Leather has a long history with the LGBT community, and as such also often features in pride parades around the world, but the same isn’t true for the flag and community you added. You can start a discussion on the Pride flag talk page of course if you want other editors input, but it will likely echo what I just said, which is why I reverted your addition. Raladic (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313 Online events: New: Translation contest 2024 | Science Fiction and Fantasy | Women in Sports Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Wiki Loves Sport 2024 22 July - 22 September Tip of the month: A foreign language biography does not guarantee notability for English Wikipedia. Check the guidelines before you start. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

• News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates

• Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

• In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

• Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna

• In the media: War and information in war and politics

• Sister projects: On editing Wikisource

• Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan

• Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

• Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos

• Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections

• Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

• Humour: A joke

• Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn

• Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps

• Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Sweet6970 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, I’m familiar with the area, thanks, please take a read of WP:DONTTEMPLATE. Raladic (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The Contentious Topics Notice is not a ‘Template’ as described in the essay WP:DONTTEMPLATE. If you don’t want to have Contentious Topics Notices added to your Talk page, you could use the Ctopics/aware template, as suggested in the Notice I have added above. Sweet6970 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation of vandalism

I see that the tool you have used to revert me on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom, RW 16.1, is described as a counter-vandalism tool i.e. you are calling me a vandal in your edit summary. I refer you to WP:NPA. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As a reasonably experienced editor, you should know better than to throw around unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS, and know that regular maintenance tools such as RedWarn are tools used by hundreds of editors to simplify moderation, both to counter vandalism, but also for many non-vandalism related tasks such as regular undos that can automatically cite relevant policies and maintenance templates. Usage of tools does not constitute personal attacks and my edit summary contained no mention of vandalism anywhere.

In turn, your own accusation here runs afoul of WP:AGF, so I ask you to please stop WP:HOUNDING me. Raladic (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Title change

Can you help me with List of Japanese Academy Award winners and nominees to List of Japanese Emmy, Grammy, Academy, and Tony Award winners and nominees? I already did the major improvements with my article (Filipino). GeniusTaker (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GeniusTaker - please note that it looks like you copied content from List of Japanese Grammy Award winners and nominees without properly attributing this change or holding a WP:MERGE discussion beforehand whether the two articles should be merged or not.

I have reverted your change for now, so please follow the guidelines at merge first, so the community can have a discussion on whether we should merge these articles or keep them separate (which is likely preferred), as keeping them separate may be more WP:PRECISE for what people are searching for, than a combined article would be. Raladic (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

• Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

• News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

• Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

• In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

• Obituary: JamesR

• Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

• Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315 Online events: New: | Women in film and stage | Indigenous women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (July, August, September) | Women in Sports (July, August) Announcements from other communities TBD Tip of the month: Check your athlete's notability before researching and creating her bio. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New title

Rename a new title with this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees. GeniusTaker (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Heya @GeniusTaker, firstly you should really have made this discussion on the talk page of the article in question, secondly, I don't quite understand what you mean. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean I want you to rename or move the article with that: List of Korean Academy Award winners and nominees → List of South Korean Academy Award winners and nominees – Move from Korean to South Korean to fit in like the Oscar submission did. GeniusTaker (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You started the move discussion on the talk page there, you have to wait for consensus of people interested in the article to voice their support or opposition and following the discussion there, if a consensus is reached, then a move can be made. Raladic (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh right. Sorry that I already started the discussion XD. GeniusTaker (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

• In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

• Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

• In focus: Twitter marks the spot

• News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.

• Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

• Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

• Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

• Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So...have fun with that one

I'm literally in the process of getting ready for bed, but noticed this reversion happened just now. No idea what that's about, but I presume you got tied up with some bigoted troll somewhere. I'd advise going to WP:ANI with that one. And probably have that edit (because of the edit summary) oversighted. Silverseren^C 03:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note last night @Silver seren, I requested help from admins to RD it and the user has been blocked. Raladic (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you give details of why you deleted my edit on Transgender health

You posted on my page:

• "Your recent edit to Transgender health care seemed less than neutral and has been removed.

But gave no details as to why - so in answer to you offer to give details -yes I would be very grateful to hear them. The reason you gave in the page Talk seems unfounded:

• "This page is not here to try to whitewash conversion therapy, which is widely condemned worldwide."

Please do give your reasons in the Talk for Transgender Health. ThxPeckedagain (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The reasons are, as the edit summary indicated, violations of neutral POV. A lot of the changes, such as your edit-warring change to the lead to try to make things appear more controversial than they are, violate our neutrality of view. While the UK has taken a large backstep in transgender health care, this has not been universally observed in the rest of the world, so it is WP:UNDUE to ram the Uk's decision into every transgender article on Wikipedia to do so. You've also removed large amounts of well sourced information without consensus to do so.

As for the other one on Transgender health care trying to whitewash Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy - it is undue for the article on Transgender health care in the way you added it, again violating NPOV (and UNDUE in this case) - it is instead already discussed at length at Conversion therapy in the appropriate context of what it is, so at best, a link to there may be added, but even that is questionable, as the practice of conversion therapy is not generally considered health care. Raladic (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Cal Horton

Hello Raladic, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Cal Horton, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Horton.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For making well sourced articles on Women In Red and LGBTQ+ topics, saving articles at AfD by improving them and being a lovely member of the project :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks so much. I am very happy about the contributions I've been able to make to the project and hope to continue many more :) Raladic (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317 Online events: New: Women writers & their works | Geofocus: Islands A - H Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (Jul, Aug, Sep) Announcements from other communities August 30 is the tenth anniversary of WikiProject Women writers! Tip of the month: Try her pen name when searching for sources, and remember to add her to any of these that apply: List of pen names, List of literary initials, and Category:Pseudonymous women writers. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Page mover granted

Hello, Raladic. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

• News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

• In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

• Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

• News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

• Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

• Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

• Traffic report: After the gold rush

• Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wp:message

Thank you for your message, I will check my edit history and get back to you if I have any inquiries. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Dear User:Raladic I appreciate your message about the Edit War related reminder. Can you please confirm that it is the related link? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Goodtiming8871,

Yes, you made more than one content revert between your 3 edits here: [1], [2], [3] content additions, after the content was reverted by one user, you re-added removed content again a second time, thus you made one reversion too many, which runs afoul of the WP:1RR restriction that is placed on the article (as warned when you click the edit button on the page and the big red banner on that article talk page).

At that point, you can be subject to being blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. So this is just a word of caution to avoid doing it again in the future on contentious topics that are subject to heightened editing restrictions, as next time you may be reported by someone without warning.

In this case I just warned you and asked you to self-revert, which is how you can avoid being blocked. Another user has already reverted your second reversion here, so there is nothing for you to revert at this point for this case,

So just take this as a word of warning for the future.

Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. I will try to understand well your message. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

• In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

• Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

• Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics

• Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing

• News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?

• Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?

• Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors

• Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2024

Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320 Online events: New: Women in STEM | Geofocus: Islands I-P | Women in archaeology Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities October is Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" Good Article Edit-a-thon Tip of the month: Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Raladic. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The LGBTQ Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work carrying out the LGBT to LGBTQ move across articles, categories, and templates, as well as WikiProject LGBT studies to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies!--Trystan (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) Raladic (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for moving the Play the Game article. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help :) Raladic (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

• News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

• Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

• In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

• Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

• Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

• Book review: The Editors

• Humour: The Newspaper Editors

• Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for explaining that to be. I'm sorry I was wrong and didn't fully understand the background of this issue fully. Mjeffersonm (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be very overwhelming at first, and especially when it comes to the biographies of living people, they are particularly strict (to ensure they are not subject to things such as potential libel).

Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

the RFC talk page update.

Hello Raladic, Please note that I did below - per WP:TPG and WP:TALK#REVISE When there is a reply to specific content that was previously posted, it was recognized that when the content is changed to clarify the specific content, even if the existing content is deleted, the deletion should be marked and the content should be marked as revised. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're revising something, the best practice is to strike it and place the new content next to it, so it's clear what was revised without having to check the actual history.

Otherwise it can appear that replies already made to a changed content could be misconstrued.

Since this change of the text was very far ranging, it was better to re-instate it and if need be, you should close the thread and start a new one if you truly think a new attempt has more chance, though it looks based on the response to it, that the community consensus is strongly against your proposal. Raladic (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

RMTR at Hawk tuah

I’m not sure 100% what happened, but it looks like you and Estar8806 tried to complete the move at the exact same time and it looks somehow everything ended up at the exact same place it was before. If possible, can you please re-move the page to the correct title per the discussion (Hawk Tuah → Hawk tuah)? Thank you both for your help. cyberdog958^Talk 05:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Lol it appears indeed that happened. I'll go fix it, thanks for catching it. Raladic (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh, never seen that happen before. Great catch lol estar8806 (talk) ★ 06:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now @Cyberdog958.

It looks like both @Estar8806 and I had the pageswap script page loaded at the same time and somehow it just back-to-back swapped them forward and then back :D Raladic (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I figured it was something to do with a “pressed the button at the same time” type of situation. Thank you both for your fast resolution. cyberdog958^Talk 06:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2024

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323 Online events: New: Asian women | Geofocus: Islands Q-Z | Women in engineering Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Annual Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) is an online campaign designed to boost Asian content on Wikipedia each November. Unreferenced articles backlog drive. These Wikiproject clean-up lists offer a start to November's backlog drive, e.g. Women's History and Women writers Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed images at search.creativecommons.org/ Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

2nd RM for "Gun show loophole" title started by the same editor

Diff [4]. Just to let you know, your close is not being contested according to them, though they did say "The last article move proposal had more "Support" than "Oppose" !votes, and substantial arguments behind them". Rather, they have opted to immediately start a brand new RM. This time, to change the wording of the suggested title to "Private gun sales (United States)" which they claim is different from "Private sale of firearms in the United States". I am required to AGF, but this doesn't make much sense to me. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As the editor who opened the new RM should be aware, we edit Wikipedia based on WP:CONSENSUS, not counting of WP:!VOTEs and in my review of the discussion I carefully weighted the responses of all editors in the discussion in line with our policies on article titles and the supporting data presented by editors in the course of the discussion based on the usage of the titles in reliable sources.

As I have closed this RM, I cannot be involved in the new RM and it will be up to another uninvolved closer to consider the new RM, but they will likely look at the prior RM for reference. Raladic (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. I am concerned that they will just keep opening RM's until they get a name change. Is that normal? Cheers. DN (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If that happened, that may be considered disruptive editing, so if you’re concerned about that you could raise it at WP:ANI to seek input from the wider community or an uninvolved admin. Raladic (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

• From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

• In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

• Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

• Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

• In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

• Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

• Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

• Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

• News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases

• In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names

• Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024

• Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall § Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs

 – Moving discussion to the Page talk page to see input from other editors. Raladic (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Hi Raladic. You have created this page and transcluded it onto the recall page, but I have removed the transclusion. Namely, there's no need to advertise RRfA like this, because like all RfAs they are highly visible, and there's no need to mirror what was done for the petitions (transcluded list) which aren't advertised anywhere else; a list of RRfAs is already at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Closed petitions -- updating manually at an additional place is unnecessary and duplicative. This makes the page orphaned, so I believe that it should be deleted. If you agree that it should, G7 should still work. —Alalch E. 12:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

RFAs are advertised, but since these are RFAs as a result of the recall, I do feel that having them listed at the WP:RECALL page is worthwhile for convenience.

And another editor @Stephen helped fix the sentence case, which I take as agreeing that this sentence s a useful addition to the page.

Maybe revert your undo and take to the Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall page to see if other editors feel like it’s useful or not? Raladic (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Please raise for discussion.

Regarding the protected Sarah McBride page—and you may feel free to post this in its entirety at that article's Talk page—

It is utterly unhelpful that protections against vandalism at that page extend to the Talk page. As such, unregistered editors are prevented from posting proposed changes to content. As such, the encyclopedia is hurt in its loss of a reasonable pathway by which its errors might be civilly and charitably brought to its attention.

A simple and relevant case, which we would have repaired (had the article not been protected), or posted to Talk (had it been appropriately semi-protected):

The section, "Early life and education" terminates with an end-of-paragraph inline citation that simply does not support the content appearing in that paragraph. In fact, that source is poor, both because it does not begin to cover the information appearing in the paragraph—place of birth, DOB, parents' names, father's and mother's occupations, i.e., it supports none of the purported factual material in the paragraph—and because, even were to support content, the source is ostensibly autobiographical, and so neither independent, nor third party, as called for by WP:VERIFY. (The source is a self-authored biography post at an employer-type webpage, whose content is either authored by, or is under the control of, the title subject.)

These contentions are supported as follows, but let the following also be said: Protecting Talk pages so that formal edit requests cannot be made there by non-logging editors is contrary to our founding principles, and is a practice that was essentially never seen prior to the last few years. While it may make sense to restrict the article space content to maintain the presentability of the article per se, there is no reasonable justification to stifle productive discourse.

The only argument in favor might be that most vandalism arises from non-logging accounts, but that has always been the case, and extending protection to Talk fully disenfrachises non-logging editors, including those not guilty of any malfeasance. For that reason it can be argued (alongside its never having been practiced early in our history) that such Talk restrictions are contrary to the founding intents, practices, and principles of the encyclopedia (and we are old enough to state this with confidence).

Finally, we are a editor with an account, but edit alongside many who haven't one, and so post this message to you, for application at the Sarah McBride Talk page, on their behalf.

With regard, an editor with many tens of thousands of unreverted and thus persistent, encyclopedia-supportive edits. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The content of the article paragraph referenced is this:

Sarah McBride was born in Wilmington, Delaware, to David and Sally McBride on August 9, 1990. Her father was a lawyer for Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor and her mother was a guidance counselor and a founder of the Cab Calloway School of the Arts.

The citation content, in its entirety, with forward slashed indicating paragraph breaks, reads:

Background / Cab Calloway School of Arts, 2009 / Bachelor's degree, Government, American University, 2013 / State Senator / Senator Sarah McBride represents the First State Senate District, which includes Claymont, Bellefonte, and parts of Edgemoor and Wilmington. / Raised in Wilmington in the First Senate District, she graduated from Cab Calloway School of the Arts and American University. / She has been involved in community advocacy for most of her life, including working for former Governor Jack Markell, the late Attorney General Beau Biden, and as a White House intern during the Obama Administration. Most recently, she served as a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ equal rights organization. / Prior to her service in the State Senate, McBride led the successful effort to pass a landmark non-discrimination law in Delaware, worked with state leaders to expand health care covered by Medicaid, and championed legislation protecting vulnerable youth from child abuse. / McBride has taught public policy at the University of Delaware and is the author of the 2018 memoir, “Tomorrow Will Be Different.” / For her work and advocacy, former Gov. Markell awarded McBride the Order of the First State, making her one of the youngest Delawareans granted the state’s highest civilian honor. When McBride was elected in November 2020, succeeding former state Senator Harris B. McDowell III, she became the first openly transgender state senator in American history. / As a state senator, McBride has passed legislation expanding access to health care, requiring mental health and media literacy education in public schools, promoting green technologies, and protecting workers and families. In just her first term, McBride passed the landmark Healthy Delaware Families Act, providing paid family and medical leave to workers throughout the First State and marking the largest expansion of Delaware's social safety net in decades. / She currently serves as chair of the Senate Health & Social Services Committee and is a member of the Senate Housing Committee, Senate Corrections & Public Safety Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and the Joint Legislative Oversight and Sunset Committee. / Sarah married her late husband Andrew Cray in 2014 and is the proud aunt of Juliette, Theo, Bennett, Sydney, Ben and Addison.

From the foregoing, it should be clear that the citation does not properly support the paragraph to which it affixed, and is otherwise a poor choice (as having been penned either by the title subject, of by staff reporting to her, such that its content is under her control).

Per WP:VERIFY, please facilitate hiding or removing the source, and replacing it with a source that actually supports the content of each factual assertion of the section. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, to address the reason for why this talk page is now semi-protected, it is because there was an outsizedly large amount of BLP violations happening on the talk page, that required Revision Deletion as you can see from the Talk page history - this is a big problem and because of it, the talk page had to be protected, as the BLP in question has recently gotten increased attention following their election to Congress. We of course appreciate editing from both registered and IP editors, but Wikipedia is large, so if you feel you'd like to provide continued improvements to this article, then there's the simple path to WP:REGISTER an account to contribute to the talk page.

Now with regards to the content you say has problems, note that WP:ABOUTSELF of the WP:V policy does allow some limited self-published ressources, the paragraph in question is about her backstory and does not contain unduly self-serving or exceptional claims, so it is fine to use as a source. In any case, I added two more sources now to support the parents. Next time if you'd like an edit, please help with bringing the sources for it. Raladic (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns regarding a comment on Talk:Trans

As I was closing the RM for Trans as "not moved", I noticed this comment that you made in replying to an opponent of the move:

Not that I was surprised to encounter [opposition], which is why I was well equipped with the evidence that would easily pass for any other topic based on the evidence, but sadly, improving LGBTQ coverage on Wikipedia to address the WP:Systemic Bias against LGBTQ_and_Wikipedia#LGBTQ_coverage still faces outsized opposition for no reason.

I came here not to indict you, but simply to ask for clarification—is the purpose of this comment to allege that your opponent is personally opposed to LGBT rights, or merely an observation? If the latter, may I ask why this led you to assume people would oppose this move? JJP_Master (she/they) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a general observation. I’m always hoping to get pleasantly surprised, but unfortunately hitting glass ceilings in still pretty common, whether it’s creating of articles, or things like this redirect.

The evidence I presented makes it pretty clear that this would typically pass just fine as a primary redirect, but the bar is sadly just often dramatically higher relating to gender or LGBTQ topics. I spend most of my time improving queer representation on Wikipedia (aside from fighting vandalism and recently having page moved a lot of LGBT to LGBTQ after the RM I drafted in August and the resulting actions including the rename of the Wikiproject as well, and all that also led me to get more interested in clerking page moves, so I’ve been clerking at RM/TR and RM closures the past few months as well now), so at this point, I have had my fair share of such encounters. I think the most markedly one was the wild ride that the discussions of the essay of WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA was and the attempts by some users to get it deleted.

@JJP - I would have appreciated a more detailed close rationale on your close, instead of no comment close, though of why you discounted the presented PT1 and co evidence presented without comment, which did see support from some people, even someone with a weak oppose. Raladic (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added the rationale for the closure on the above page. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read it. I still think it was the wrong conclusion as PT2 is not a requirement and the PT1 refutation was flawed (as we do regularly use Wikinav + Massview data like this to support a PT1 primary topic designation and a PT does not need to satisfy both as was pointed out), but honestly I've grown too tired of this, so I'll move on, even if every place other than Wikipedia points Trans to Transgender as I've shown. Raladic (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GTrang (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm presuming that this edit summary was meant for the IP's edits? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, sorry about that. redwarn just reverts the last editor even though I had multiple edits selected as I hit the wrong button. See follow up restoration prior to NPOV violation by up editor. Raladic (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is not the first time I've seen you commenting on a potential misfire of rollback. Is this all you do? JJP_Master (she/they) 02:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's reasonable to check rather than assume it was intended. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Auto-archival configuration

Hello! I've been cleaning up this maintenance category and I've noticed your edits have sometimes misconfigured {{User:MiszaBot/config}}. For instance: this edit (fix) and this edit (fix). Just something to watch out for when setting up a page to auto-archive, and I saw you did this more recent one properly. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for catching those.

I typically copy one of the existing configs to avoid errors, but especially the Template talk capitalization is a good one for me to remember (since I more rarely add it to non-mainspace talk pages).

Thanks for catching those and fixing them :) Raladic (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)