User talk:Goldsztajn/Archives/2024/March

The Signpost: 2 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from IFtL (12:07, 6 March 2024)
Hi I think I created this section by mistake, all I wanted to do was create a Wikipedia page where I add info about the organisation I work for. --IFtL (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd try to help; but you're indefinitely blocked. :( Goldsztajn (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from SarahHunnings24 on User talk:SarahHunnings24 (14:49, 6 March 2024)
Hello, I have now declared a conflict of interest and wanted to double check it was correct. Also, how do I remove the tag to say that it has been done? --SarahHunnings24 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @SarahHunnings24 - the tag on the article should not be removed until the article itself has been reviewed by another editor; the article has a large amount of primary and self-published materials which do not contribute towards notability. The article needs further editing supported by secondary, independent reliable sources. Have a read of WP:ORG which elaborates the criteria for Wikipedia articles on companies. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from DaveCHare (03:27, 8 March 2024)
Hi, How do I know/check the status of a draft I have submitted? (for "Raymond Allen Hare") It was rejected once, I responded to the criticism/s in an updated draft, and then resubmitted. D --DaveCHare (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @DaveCHare - it goes back into the queue, but I'll take a look at it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @DaveCHare - you removed the templates that indicate the draft needs to be reviewed, I've readded them. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you. I appreciate you helping.
 * D DaveCHare (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @DaveCHare - I left a comment on the draft - some suggested changes regarding the referencing, remember please don't delete the material at the top of the article (this will be removed once/if the article is approved). I assume this is a relation of yours, no need to confirm to me, but if so, just acknowledging you've done this the right way to avoid a conflict of interest ... thank you! Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review review request
Hi, I am doing my first GA review, would you mind taking a look? Thanks in advance! Tosatur (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Tosatur - I've left some comments at the review. One general comment I would make - it's important when doing a review to look beyond the article's text - this is not so much about verification, which is a very important thing, but it is about making an assessment of what the sources say in general and how well that matches to what is in the article.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tosatur - you might find this useful: Talk:Sumitro Djojohadikusumo/GA1 - this was a GA reivew I did previously, where the article started out lacking neutrality and with editing was able to achieve GA status. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marcus Klingberg
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marcus Klingberg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rhodesia-independence-stamp-1965.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Rhodesia-independence-stamp-1965.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: GA backlog drive
Hello! Just a reminder that, if you have time, you are welcome to join the GA backlog drive; it runs until the end of March. You are receiving this message because you signed up on the drive page but have not yet listed any reviews. We hope to see you there! Either way, happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for review in GA nomination for Seberang Perai
Hey there Goldsztajn I saw your username on the GA mentor list & I'm wondering if you're keen to review the GA nomination for Seberang Perai? Do let me know. Thanks a bunch! hundenvonPG (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Selamat pagi/ni hao @HundenvonPenang! Interesting, I actually made many visits to that part of the world in my studies and early career ... My name on the mentor list is more about providing advice for submission, rather than reviewing. I'm committed to other work at the moment on Wikipedia, but ping me again in early March, if the review is not taken up by then and I'll have look. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Sure thing. Will ping you if the review isn't taken up by then. hundenvonPG (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Goldsztajn Hope this finds you well. Just checking in if you're still keen on reviewing? Thanks in advance! hundenvonPG (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @HundenvonPenang sorry for the delayed reply; I'll be able to have a look next weekend. No promises at this point to take it, but will come back to you. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted with thanks, Goldsztajn hundenvonPG (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from SkullBreakerDFA (11:52, 18 March 2024)
Hello I was wondering how to create a page of my own --SkullBreakerDFA (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from ANM143 (17:15, 19 March 2024)
Hi there - my first time editing a page for a member of my family. Previous page was full of inaccuracies. Can you tell me how to update an image? Many thanks --ANM143 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @ANM143 - I can see you've had engagement with another editor on your talk page on this issue - let me know if there's anything I can do to further help. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from SkullBreakerDFA (11:52, 20 March 2024)
Hello I have no questions but I wanted to say that I just made my first edit on this platform! --SkullBreakerDFA (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving a message on your talk page. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging