User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:TonyBallioni. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
SPI training
Hi greetings, I'd like to learn more about SPI and like to become a trainee under you. The page WT:SPI/C seems inactive (means doesn't answered for several days). If you like kindly please consider my request. If the request in WT:SPI/C is mandatory, I'll do so. I shall be highly hounoured if you can consider this. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Path slopu, sorry for the late reply. I don't have much free time at all right now, but you can apply to be an SPI clerk at that page, and another CU might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! PATH SLOPU 12:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
A better block message for the T-Mobile block
Hey Toni, right now the block message for the T-Mobile range block is "{{TMOblock}}: <!--ACC ignore-->", which works great on desktop, but on mobile, the block message doesn't get parsed (T236970), and even if it did, it probably wouldn't fit well on a mobile screen. In other words, it just shows users the literal string "{{TMOblock}}: <!--ACC ignore-->". Would it be possible to reblock 2607:fb90::/32 with a slightly more helpful message for mobile users, since almost all T-Mobile users are going to be mobile? Something like "{{TMOblock}}: Use Wi-Fi to edit, or create an account from a desktop computer.". Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is also going to be an issue for plenty of other blocks—see
{{Checkuser Block}}and{{Anonblock}}for other examples. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC) - I just rolled forward whatever had been done in the past, and then whomever the person is who has been making a monthly thread about this (and I think it’s one person) suggested that as the new message if I recall correctly. I don’t really care what it says, personally, but that was seen as more informative. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think y'all are following my point. The 50 million people who are affected by the TMobile block are all on mobile devices, and none of them are seeing any useful information about why they are blocked or how to deal with it.
{{Checkuser Block}}and{{Anonblock}}are not mobile specific. The only one that is in dire need of being fixed is the TMobile block and it needs to say something besides a template transclusion (since that doesn't work on mobile). Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)- Kaldari, sorry for the late response... very busy IRL of late. If you think of a better message, let me know and I or one of my admin TPS can change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like links work, although templates don't. Please change the block reason to "This T-Mobile IPv6 range is blocked because it was abused by vandals. See the advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users for info." I'm not sure what <!--ACC ignore--> means, but be aware that HTML comments in block reasons are displayed as escaped text on mobile, so you should only include that if it's really needed. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I kept the template, because I suspect anyone who is curious enough about block messages to notice them likely edits from desktop mode in mobile since the mobile editing interface is reader friendly but not editor friendly at all. I did add the link "See the advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users for info", which to me seems like it maximizes the degree of possible information. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing that. FYI, the advanced mode on mobile was just deployed a few weeks ago and makes the mobile interface much more editor-friendly if you turn it on. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I’ll try it. I’ve been editing from desktop on mobile for years. It’s not great, but it’s also better than the default mobile mode, imo. Anyway, thanks for letting me know about it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing that. FYI, the advanced mode on mobile was just deployed a few weeks ago and makes the mobile interface much more editor-friendly if you turn it on. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I kept the template, because I suspect anyone who is curious enough about block messages to notice them likely edits from desktop mode in mobile since the mobile editing interface is reader friendly but not editor friendly at all. I did add the link "See the advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users for info", which to me seems like it maximizes the degree of possible information. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like links work, although templates don't. Please change the block reason to "This T-Mobile IPv6 range is blocked because it was abused by vandals. See the advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users for info." I'm not sure what <!--ACC ignore--> means, but be aware that HTML comments in block reasons are displayed as escaped text on mobile, so you should only include that if it's really needed. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Kaldari, sorry for the late response... very busy IRL of late. If you think of a better message, let me know and I or one of my admin TPS can change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think y'all are following my point. The 50 million people who are affected by the TMobile block are all on mobile devices, and none of them are seeing any useful information about why they are blocked or how to deal with it.
Very busy--TPS help appreciated
Hi all, since I've had several people poke me about emails and lack of responses here, I am very busy off-wiki these days, and don't really have much time to edit except late at night or on the weekends. I do get emails during the day, but am pretty much limiting myself to the functionary/os/cu mailing list and stuff related to the Election Commission, which I still plan on serving on because I'm available to review anything and feel I can respond timely to that when needed.
All that to say, if any helpful TPS see a message on my talk page they feel like they can answer, please feel free to go ahead 
If you've sent me an email I've ignored, I'm very sorry, and I'll try to get to it this week. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- You need help with your TPS reports? Maxim(talk) 00:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I’ve been told by friends that I am the personification of that movie, but I’ve never actually seen it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:ORG
TonyB. Hello. I originally posted this about 22 days ago. I got no response. I would appreciate a relevant response. See below:
Hi. I am in the process of changing an article for a Guianan college to a redirect to another page because it is does not meet the criteria for notability per GNG or otherwise. As far as I know, colleges have fallen under the purview of WP:ORG. So, I just recently went to the WP:ORG page and in the intro it states:
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.
I believe this is an error or somebody rewrote that and it got past editors who normally watch guideline and policy pages. I know you were involved in editing this page awhile back, which is great and you did a good job. I believe the changes were related to an RFC. In any case, I am wondering if you know anything about the above change. And I am wondering if you know what the rationale was for changing it.
Also I checked out WP:SCHOOLS and for notability it refers to GNG, ORG, and GEO. So there is a discrepancy. I think in the past schools fell under the purview of WP:ORG as well as WP:N (WP:GNG). And I think that was true for a long time. I may as well mention that religions, sects, and sports teams are also organizations and I don't see how these do not fall under the purview of WP:ORG. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I re-posted this today ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I am no longer in the process of changing the above mentioned article, but the issue is still the same. I am inclined to unilaterally change WP:ORG to what I think it should be - because I think this is a typo, a mistake, or someone else unilaterally working on their own. So, I am trying to figure out what happened. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni. Can you please give me a reason for not answering this post? Or please respond to my query. This is quite frustrating. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Steve Quinn, I'm very sorry. Right now, I'm working around 15 hour days at work so Wikipedia has not been my focus during the week. When I get to it on the weekend, I've usually forgotten what has happened on my talk page, and am also pretty behind on my email.To your question: I believe the RfC had a carve out for schools because historically, secondary schools and above have been considered notable. Post-secondary institutions of higher learning have even more than secondary schools also been seen as notable at AfD. Not necessarily a rule, but certainly past precedent. Kudpung would be better suited to answer your questions on education articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni. Sorry about your long workdays. I hope it gets better for you. Thanks for clearing this up. I try talk to Kudpung later if he doesn't respond here. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- HI Steve, not only are our notability guidelines sometimes ambiguous, but if you read through GNG you will see that it is even self-contradictory. This comes from surreptitious editing by people who want things to be their way without a discussion. As far as schools are concerned I still contend that as they are exempt from A7, the decades old precedent evidenced by thousands of AfD closures, high schools are generally considered notable, but a lazy unreferenced one line stub might not escape my deletion button. Primary schools and middle schools are (also by long-standing precedent) generally redirected to the school district article (USA), or to the locality (rest of the world). I am only the coord of WP:WPSCH - I cannot answer for colleges and universities Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Thanks for responding and thanks your input. Just for the record I have never been interested in speedy delete A7 or otherwise for school articles. Also, when importance is asserted in the article, then it can't be speedy deleted except in a very few cases. One such case I can think of is blatant advertising. Whether or not that type of article asserts importance, if it is truly advertising then it is eligible for speedy delete. At the same time, I am in no way comparing articles on schools to articles promoting companies or products. Based on you mentioning A7, apparently your project has encountered a lot of that. I guess the only way to counter A7 tagging is to be alert. When discussing GNG by itself I don't see it as ambiguous, so we will have agree to disagree on that one. To me, it is fairly straight line that can be drawn beginning with "significant coverage" to "reliable" to "sources" to "independent of the subject" to "presumed". Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- HI Steve, if you read through the guideline you will see that it contradicts itself in several places. This is because some people think it is clever to quietly make a 'minor' change to the wording that goes unnoticed so that that it suits their view, but they don't go through the entire document and and change everything. Schools are exempt from A7 (i.e. may not be tagged CSD-A7) but they can be tagged for anything else. It would be extremely rare for a government (aka 'state' school in the UK) to be doing any advertising. What we do get however, especially in the USA where sport/athletic/marching bands are considered more important than academic achievement, is students adding bloated, boastful content, but this can be addressed by normal editing. On the other hand, some for-profit schools create very promotional pages about themselves which of course we do not tolerate. Private schools however, are not all 'for-profit', although they are nevertheless sometimes very expensive. You take the group of famous independent British schools such as Eton, Harrow, Malvern College, etc - typically the members of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, they are too proud of their reputation to be engaged in any advertising on Wikipedia. If you would like further input, don't hesitate to ask the other coords of WP:WPSCH, John from Idegon (USA), or ClemRutter (UK). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Your last post was very informative. Thanks. And it seems you are part of an active project that is very beneficial for Wikipedia. See you around. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- HI Steve, if you read through the guideline you will see that it contradicts itself in several places. This is because some people think it is clever to quietly make a 'minor' change to the wording that goes unnoticed so that that it suits their view, but they don't go through the entire document and and change everything. Schools are exempt from A7 (i.e. may not be tagged CSD-A7) but they can be tagged for anything else. It would be extremely rare for a government (aka 'state' school in the UK) to be doing any advertising. What we do get however, especially in the USA where sport/athletic/marching bands are considered more important than academic achievement, is students adding bloated, boastful content, but this can be addressed by normal editing. On the other hand, some for-profit schools create very promotional pages about themselves which of course we do not tolerate. Private schools however, are not all 'for-profit', although they are nevertheless sometimes very expensive. You take the group of famous independent British schools such as Eton, Harrow, Malvern College, etc - typically the members of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, they are too proud of their reputation to be engaged in any advertising on Wikipedia. If you would like further input, don't hesitate to ask the other coords of WP:WPSCH, John from Idegon (USA), or ClemRutter (UK). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Thanks for responding and thanks your input. Just for the record I have never been interested in speedy delete A7 or otherwise for school articles. Also, when importance is asserted in the article, then it can't be speedy deleted except in a very few cases. One such case I can think of is blatant advertising. Whether or not that type of article asserts importance, if it is truly advertising then it is eligible for speedy delete. At the same time, I am in no way comparing articles on schools to articles promoting companies or products. Based on you mentioning A7, apparently your project has encountered a lot of that. I guess the only way to counter A7 tagging is to be alert. When discussing GNG by itself I don't see it as ambiguous, so we will have agree to disagree on that one. To me, it is fairly straight line that can be drawn beginning with "significant coverage" to "reliable" to "sources" to "independent of the subject" to "presumed". Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- HI Steve, not only are our notability guidelines sometimes ambiguous, but if you read through GNG you will see that it is even self-contradictory. This comes from surreptitious editing by people who want things to be their way without a discussion. As far as schools are concerned I still contend that as they are exempt from A7, the decades old precedent evidenced by thousands of AfD closures, high schools are generally considered notable, but a lazy unreferenced one line stub might not escape my deletion button. Primary schools and middle schools are (also by long-standing precedent) generally redirected to the school district article (USA), or to the locality (rest of the world). I am only the coord of WP:WPSCH - I cannot answer for colleges and universities Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni. Sorry about your long workdays. I hope it gets better for you. Thanks for clearing this up. I try talk to Kudpung later if he doesn't respond here. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Steve Quinn, I'm very sorry. Right now, I'm working around 15 hour days at work so Wikipedia has not been my focus during the week. When I get to it on the weekend, I've usually forgotten what has happened on my talk page, and am also pretty behind on my email.To your question: I believe the RfC had a carve out for schools because historically, secondary schools and above have been considered notable. Post-secondary institutions of higher learning have even more than secondary schools also been seen as notable at AfD. Not necessarily a rule, but certainly past precedent. Kudpung would be better suited to answer your questions on education articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Global watchlist - Update 2
Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:
- General notes
- To report a bug or request a feature, please create a new task on Phabricator with the script's tag
- Recent additions
- Site validation has been tightened. Previously, only the language code and project name had to be valid - now, they must be a valid combination (i.e.
en.wikiversityexists, and so is valid, butsco.wikiversityis not valid, because no such wiki exists). - When the global watchlist feed is loading, an OOUI widget will be shown, rather than an animated gif.
- An option has been added to no longer group edits to the same page. For now, this isn't very useful, since metadata for the edits (editor, summary, tags, etc.) are not yet shown, but they will be soon. Until then, ungrouped edits are treated the same as pages with only 1 edit - the minor and bot flags are displayed if applicable. If edits are grouped, the minor and bot flags are only shown if they apply to all of the edits.
- Upcoming changes
- Starting with version 5.0, there will be an option at the settings page to switch to and from a "stable" version of the script. When activated, the script import in your global.js should be replaced, and then the page refreshed with the new script loaded. The stable script will live at m:User:DannyS712/Global watchlist/stable.js, and will be updated with each full release. Otherwise, it shouldn't be edited, providing a version that is less prone to bugs as the script is developed.
- Announcements
- WARNING: Starting with version 5.1, the option to mark the pages of a site as seen be implemented using the
entirewatchlistAPI option, rather than manually listing the titles. This is being done to simplify the implementation code. This will result in the same functionality as marking all pages as seen via Special:Watchlist (i.e. even if the page isn't visible due to your filter choices, it will still be marked as seen). If you would like to keep using the current method for a while, please switch to the stable branch.
- Next release
Version 5.0 has just gone live. It includes the new features mentioned above.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712, how did I end up on this mailing list? TonyBallioni (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)Pursuant to your support over meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Watchlists/Revive Crosswatch tool, per history of the MMS-target-page. ∯WBGconverse 07:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- It seems very presumptuous from that to assume I’d like to be included in some random person’s newsletter. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah; I agree that permission ought to have been taken. This is the diff in question, where Danny copied all supporters of the proposal to a peliminary MMS-target page, which was subsequently merged to the distribution list, which is linked to in the above MMS. ∯WBGconverse 08:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- It seems very presumptuous from that to assume I’d like to be included in some random person’s newsletter. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry - I have removed you DannyS712 (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)Pursuant to your support over meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Watchlists/Revive Crosswatch tool, per history of the MMS-target-page. ∯WBGconverse 07:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
ygm
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.
— xaosflux Talk 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Suspicious account edit-warring at Mottainai
I was half-tempted to report this editor on ANEW, but he has only barely violated 3RR if one counts his initial edit as a revert of my edit from last February, and I'd rather not revert back again just to see what happens.
He has been refusing all attempts at constructive discussion (see [1]), instead repeating the claim that my edits are based on "personal opinion" three times.[2][3][4] What's more, it seems super-fishy that an account with scarcely 300 edits would show up and reinsert text that had been removed almost two years earlier, and despite having never edited an article talk page before today, he somehow knows about RFCs.
This combination of factors makes ANEW feel somewhat inappropriate, but I'm not sure if it's reached ANI levels, so I figured I should come here to ask for a second opinion from the only admin who was (albeit very briefly and narrowly) involved in the discussion last February.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- This has been well handled at at WP:ANEW although the content issue is ongoing. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I'm not sure I agree that this has been handled well at ANEW. There was (of course!) no reference to any sock-/meat-puppetry, and not only the content of the dispute but seemingly the fact that there was an ongoing talk page discussion (of sorts) was ignored. The only thing that changed relative to the above, as a result of the ANEW report, is that I have been obliged to self-revert back in the bad content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- He's now repeated the accusation that my editing is based on "personal opinion" a fourth time, with the added tidbit referring to me as "the anonymous". What's more, looking again at the timing of his edits, it seems like it would be nearly impossible for him to actually come to the talk page, read my comment, and pen a thoughtful reply: this comment by me was 290 words long and he posted his response seven minutes later. I wouldn't hold it against anyone who didn't want to read his comment and figure out if it was a reasonable reply to mine, but just looking at the time stamps should make it clear that this editor is not engaged in constructive discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ghana Education Service
It looks like someone has deleted the Ghana Education Service, even though it is a perfectly legitimate article of a major governmental agency. Could you please look into it? Histohob 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ghana Education Service was deleted on 9 November 2019 due to it having been created by a blocked user, namely Tyt0791 (talk · contribs). I suggest you create a new version of the article which might use information from [5] and [6]. I will explain at Kandymotownie's talk about the signature. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Request for help
Re vandalism, etc, by 2600:1700:BFB0:1A50:1C5B:BEFC:9BEB:D422 (talk · contribs). This may be of a sensitive nature, so please red/delete this afterwards. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tony. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Meant to reply sooner, but something else came up on my watchlist. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just didn't know if it rose to the level of sharing with Wiki emergency or oversight. Troubling rhetoric. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just revdel’d, didn’t suppress. I did email emergency@ because they appear to be a high school student from their earlier edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good. And yes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just revdel’d, didn’t suppress. I did email emergency@ because they appear to be a high school student from their earlier edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just didn't know if it rose to the level of sharing with Wiki emergency or oversight. Troubling rhetoric. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Meant to reply sooner, but something else came up on my watchlist. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
|
I've been watching the Beeblebrox CU discussion, thanks for being willing to assume good faith for Beeblebrox - admitting that your judgment might be wrong is always tough. creffett (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
- Did you know... that this is like the go-to snack on United Airlines now? In every other regard they treat you like cattle, but these little babies lessen the pain at least a little. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, I fly American (delays, but at least they apologize...) I did know that McDonalds had some “Around the world” promotion this summer and the Stroopwafel McFlurry was by far the best temporary menu item. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
credit where credit is due
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| Whatever other differences we may have, I have long had concerns about barely active admins and the inactivity policy. Your careful, methodical approach has brought about real, substantive changes to that policy. Well done sir. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Question about RfC
Hi there. User:John from Idegon suggested I contact you for help with a proposal. Our discussion is here.
Many of my edits are to US city and town articles, and these articles often contain "rankings" on various aspects of the city, published in popular magazines. The lead at Trussville, Alabama is an example.
A rough consensus against inclusion of these rankings was formed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?, and I'd like to propose something similar for US city/town articles.
Would an RfC be the best route? For example, a consensus was reached at this RfC to not include "affluent" in the lead of city articles.
Thanks for any advice you can give! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni has posted above that he is very busy. In case he is unable to respond soon, I am offering some thoughts. It looks like the relevant project is WP:CITY and a first step would be to post something similar to the above at WT:WikiProject Cities. That is, start with a general discussion about the issue and the desirability of an RfC. After a week, hold an RfC. Your example of the lead at Trussville, Alabama is useful, but it would also be good to show how the lead might be reworded. In fact, try rewording a few articles and see what pushback you get, before a project cities discussion. An RfC works best when used to resolve a straightforward disagreement with diffs where the question becomes which version is better. Ping me when you come to drafting wording for the RfC because that example you linked to is not optimum. It would be kinder to TB if the discussion continued elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Thanks for your advice. I'll work on this and contact you at your talk page about the wording of the RfC. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Checkuser question
Hi Tony, hope you are doing well. I have a checkuser question. I am prepping to open an SPI, and have eyes on three editors I suspect to be socking. Two of the editors have been active very recently, but the oldest account has been dormant for over 90 days. My question is; would checkuser be able to tie the two active accounts to the older, dormant account, or failing that be able to determine if the two active editors are connected? Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) CU data is only retained for 90 days, so the stale account could not be confirmed to the others using CU data. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: thanks. The sock situation has resolved itself. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind undoing your close for, oh, a day or so? I don't know if you noticed, but I had just asked a clarifying question, and I'd rather the entire discussion be kept in one place. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- There's nothing more to discuss. You asked for an exemption. We (the Electoral Commission) said no. The purpose of that page is to contact the coordinators or the Electoral Commission, not to complain that you don't like the rules. You contacted the commission, and we gave you an answer. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- There may be nothing more to discuss from the election commission's perspective, I understand that. No one is accusing the election commission of doing their job badly; my contention is that you've been set to do the wrong job. Is there a more appropriate page to which the discussion can/should be moved? I'm aware of none; the link for election issues led to the page in question, so that's where I started it. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the proper venue would be next year's RfC or alternatively Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020. I closed it because I don't think having long discussions on settled issues involving specific users is good for the process. It's high drama enough as is. We don't want the page turning into a mini-AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that answer, although note with irony that in the past two days I've almost hit the 10 edit threshold just dealing with being disenfranchised, but it doesn't solve this year's problem: I have personal experience with multiple candidates, hence my interest in voting this year when I did not in 2018 and might well not in 2020. It's been suggested I appeal to Jimbo, which doesn't make sense to me as I've always been against his ability to intervene in community processes, but if that's the only answer, I suppose it would at least get more visibility. If nothing else, can you leave the archived discussion on the election commission page for ease of reference, at least? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did somewhat note the irony in my head :) I guess you could appeal to Jimmy, though I think he's officially said the established community process is enough for the elections a few years ago. I'm not going to archive the thread. I think there may be a bot there, but it's low enough on the list that it should be safe for you to reference in other discussions for a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. ... and that's 10 edits. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Jclemens, just to tack something on, your clarifying questions are really better suited for next year's elections. I will note that the SecurePoll information is only stored for 90 days, so there is no way to know who voted in previous elections. Primefac (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. ... and that's 10 edits. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did somewhat note the irony in my head :) I guess you could appeal to Jimmy, though I think he's officially said the established community process is enough for the elections a few years ago. I'm not going to archive the thread. I think there may be a bot there, but it's low enough on the list that it should be safe for you to reference in other discussions for a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that answer, although note with irony that in the past two days I've almost hit the 10 edit threshold just dealing with being disenfranchised, but it doesn't solve this year's problem: I have personal experience with multiple candidates, hence my interest in voting this year when I did not in 2018 and might well not in 2020. It's been suggested I appeal to Jimbo, which doesn't make sense to me as I've always been against his ability to intervene in community processes, but if that's the only answer, I suppose it would at least get more visibility. If nothing else, can you leave the archived discussion on the election commission page for ease of reference, at least? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the proper venue would be next year's RfC or alternatively Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020. I closed it because I don't think having long discussions on settled issues involving specific users is good for the process. It's high drama enough as is. We don't want the page turning into a mini-AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- There may be nothing more to discuss from the election commission's perspective, I understand that. No one is accusing the election commission of doing their job badly; my contention is that you've been set to do the wrong job. Is there a more appropriate page to which the discussion can/should be moved? I'm aware of none; the link for election issues led to the page in question, so that's where I started it. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
A strange arbitration request
Hi Tony, I'm preparing an Arbitration report for the upcoming edition of The Signpost. Just wondering if the first story has more to it that's in public view? It doesn't seem to make much sense. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I can’t really comment on oversight blocks. I can say that after I placed the block, I immediately notified the oversight list for review, as is our practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Understood, don't want to inquire about anything that's non-public. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award
|
The Red Maple Leaf Award | |
| This maple leaf is awarded to TonyBallioni for expanding James Wilson Robertson (educator) and promoting the article through DYK during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
Hey Tony--what is this editor even talking about? What lawsuit? What oversighted material? Is this like that tactic where you yell "Ukraine" a million times hoping that everyone will start looking there even though there is nothing there? Why is this editor so special that they think they can negotiate unblock requests? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- (Talk page non-negotiator) Well, I emailed TB earlier regarding my pay rise. In other news, why does Occam still have TPA when they are not appealing the block, just wasting people's time. Note the new tactic of (attempted) divide and rule: insinuating that Oshwah would've unblocked but was "uncomfortable" going against TB. ——SN54129 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- He’s obsessing over details that are irrelevant to his block in an attempt to find a sympathetic oversighter who will unblock him without community review. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wait, there's money? I'll unblock for $20. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'd get blocked for 15 :) ——SN54129 15:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wait, there's money? I'll unblock for $20. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Inquiry from Mbstone
I almost never attempt to edit a WP article but today I did, and you have blocked my IP for no apparent reasin. I dont speak WP:buzzword so pleasse forgive me. Where and how to appeal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbstone (talk • contribs)
- Mbstone, you’re likely using a VPN. Since you can edit now that means you turned it off. We don’t generally allow editing via VPNs. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Administrator changes
EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
CheckUser changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
Technical news
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
Clarification request archived
Hi TonyBallioni, the BLP clarification request which you were a party to has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (December 2019).
For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 14:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Thanks for unblocking my work IP. It wasn't a requirement, but it helped to avoid questions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
Stale SPI case
Hi TonyBallioni. I opened an SPI a few weeks ago, which you closed due to the inactivity of the potential sock. Well, now they are back. Not sure what the proper procedure is. Should I open a new SPI? If they aren't a sock, I'd hate to see them feel deterred from editing. Onel5969 TT me 12:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Don't bother. The user is
Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 19:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks Tony for taking the time to serve on the election commission. Having someone with your experience, thoughtfulness, and depth of knowledge on the commission, which as it seems to every year, had a few important decisions to make was of terrific value to the community. As a candidate I appreciate everything you did to help make this election happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Cheers
|
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well TB. MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC) |
Io Saturnalia!
.jpg)
|
Io, Saturnalia! | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas
.jpg)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm NahalAhmed. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Paradise Chronicle, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
-Nahal(T) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- NahalAhmed, I know this is an automated message, and I don't really care if you're reviewing user pages, but why did you unreview an autopatrolled page that was just a sock tag? TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for that actually it's totally mistake, When I comment [here] I accidentally click on an account and go autopartlled by mistake. I hope this doesn't go wrong in the future. Thank you.-Nahal(T) 22:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, no problem. I was just confused. Have a great night :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Have a Good Night.-Nahal(T) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, no problem. I was just confused. Have a great night :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for that actually it's totally mistake, When I comment [here] I accidentally click on an account and go autopartlled by mistake. I hope this doesn't go wrong in the future. Thank you.-Nahal(T) 22:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Hello, TonyBallioni! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
Merry merry !
|
~~~ is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
"X" is a little terse
Just sayin’… :) --Xover (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Xover: It's because, if anyone here can be said to mark the spot, it's you :) ——SN54129 19:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's short for ixnay. – bradv🍁 19:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- You mean I'm running around with a big fat target on my… username? --Xover (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Heh. It’s my standard for redacting stuff :) It’s under discussion on the list. No worries. We just take a suppress and discuss approach to complicated cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Xover (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Looks like the dramaboards are keeping you quite busy today. AddWittyNameHere 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC) |
Happy Holidays
|
Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC) |
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
2 more sleeps - Ho, Ho, Ho!!
 |
Userbox
I like you your userbox supporting IP editing. Can I use it, but with her/herself instead of his/himself? Clovermoss (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure :) Just copy it and change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, thanks for taking care of the SPI report I filed earlier. :) Clovermoss (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Requesting edit history clean
Thank you for the block on User: 95.237.178.78, can you please also clean the edit history on MasterChef (American season 9) to remove his edits completely as they are all foul language and personal attacks. Thanks. - SanAnMan (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 18:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC). 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.
-- LuK3 (Talk) 18:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはTonyBallioniたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Tony!
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello TonyBallioni: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 08:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
- From my family to yours, I hope that you have a wonderful Christmas holiday and a Happy New Year!
--TheSandDoctor Talk 08:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Joyous Season
.jpg)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! 
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
Cheers
|
Merry Christmas, TonyBallioni! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 19:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
Happy New Year!
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
- – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year!
 |
Happy New Year! | |
  Love, |
Praxidicae (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Hello TonyBallioni: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year, TonyBallioni!
TonyBallioni,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal(T) 23:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Blocked user without CheckUser template
Hi! I saw that you blocked User:Casio5309 as a sockpuppeteer, but didn’t put a template on their user page. Template:sockmaster says that only admins should use it, normally, so I didn’t put one it. Shouldn’t there be a template about it there? If there shouldn’t, why not? Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, DemonDays64, they’re an LTA but I don’t know the name and don’t really care, tbh. There were three accounts all editing AfDs at the same time confirmed to one another, so I blocked them and moved on. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)