User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2022/January

Email
I much prefer to keep all communication on-wiki. Transparency is key to a project like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough, just did not want to risk outing anyone. What are the steps that need to be taken, ? also tell me if I should ping you within this thread or if doing so is redundant Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have your talk page watchlisted, so there's no strong need to ping me, although I'm not bothered by it, and there is a chance I would miss a response on my (ever growing) watchlist. I have no experience with Arbcom, or Arbcom cases, other than emailing them when I was a new user after having been accusing of being a sock of a banned editor by an admin. or  may have more experience, though I'm not sure, and the current dumpster fire on-going at Arbcom may convince them it's not worth their time to get involved. All current dispute resolution has to be wrapped up before it can progress to Arbcom, and there's one active thread that I know of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been through ArbCom a couple of times, although just as a participant. ArbCom should be looked at as the option of last resort. The goal of ArbCom is primarily to get rid of a problem. That means a) they will investigate every player, not just the ones it was opened to investigate, and b) sometimes the easiest solution is to block everyone involved. If this goes to ArbCom, there will be peripheral damage, because that's just what ArbCom does. That said, I'm not sure they would accept it right now, although the huge mess we're all creating over at COIN may change that. The absolute best result would be for Rp2006 and Sgerbic to acknowledge that there has, at times, been a problem and state that they will be more careful - that is all that is needed. But even if they don't acknowledge it, if they are more careful in future then we don't need ArbCom, as the problem will be handled. If I was on ArbCom, (which would be dumb), I'd be inclined to see if the issue remains after the COIN discussion before taking it on. - Bilby (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! Sgerbic (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which part did you have in mind? - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Grand theft phraseology
Completely acceptable. But only if you occasionally also combine it with your best John Bercow impression. ORDAAHHHHH! Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A bargain! "You are overexcited and need to contain yourself" seems like a phrase from the video I'll use on the COIN thread, :P  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bercow had a huge litany of excellent comebacks and putdowns for uppity MPs. There's even remix videos of some of them put to music! Alas his replacement seems less proficient at controlling the excitable politicians. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * At least the commons' debates videos on youtube are somewhat more...colorful now. The ones for the Spanish congress of deputies are also terribly entertaining and so much more dramatic than either of the Houses in UK. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alas my Spanish is just about good enough to order a ham sandwich, so I'm not sure I'd get much out of those clips.
 * P.S, on a related note my bait sense is tingling about some of the pointed commentary that has just been directed your way over at COIN. It may be nothing, but it seems overly pointy to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm being careful with what I say cause it seems they're in kamikaze mode: refusing to interact with the criticisms pointed at them knowing they're likely to receive some sort of action and attempting to get me banned in the process. I just don't see the point in what they're doing, it would all be so much easier for everybody and have such better consequences for them to just respond to the questions and move on. This whole thing started because Rp started an ANI thread on something admins didnt see as actionable then spread to COIN and I guess now to arbcom. What a waste of everyone's time, honestly. Thanks for coming to my talk page, in any case, . Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see any other way to explain their behaviour at User_talk:MrFringilla (please do not engage there, it is pointless and would be considered canvassing) Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's certainly a perplexing situation. I had hoped that Sgerbic had changed her mind after our productive discussion pre-Christmas with respect to CLEANSTART. Though that seems to have not survived the holiday period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Though dark humorously, after reading that thread I'm glad someone finally ventured into McCarthyism. Seemed that it was the only thing left unsaid after the witch-hunt stuff. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, I've been accused (or mentioned or asked) by Rp, Sgerbic, or roxy of either being a communist, a witch hunter, a lawyer, or a nazi (night of long knives). At this point the only things left are a furry, a spy, and an antichrist. Hell, that sounds like the start of a terrific bar-format joke. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  01:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell if you're having the kitchen sink thrown at you, or if the labels are like Pokemon and you just gotta catch em all! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Long Island iced tea
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Long Island iced tea 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 Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Describing emails onwiki
Regarding this edit to COIN, I wouldn't have described the contents of the email in the edit, as the editors mentioned (and anyone else) have no way to respond. I find that just saying "an email was sent" without any further details usually works. (No comment, as an admin or as an arb, on the rest of the discussion.) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for giving me advice in my talk page,, much appreciated. When you say "an email was sent" should it mention the editors as well or just something like "Further emails relevant to this discussion have been sent to paid-en-wp." and leave it at that? Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably the second one; less details are generally better. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, . Much appreciated. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 07:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of "RFC: Should the websites she surveyed be described as "anti-trans" in the lead?"
This is to inform you that I challenge the 29 December 2021 closure/result of "RFC: Should the websites she surveyed be described as "anti-trans" in the lead?". I base my decision on the reasons I posted in the "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy" Talk page (I was afterwards advised to pursue the challenge here, since you were the closer, and at Administrators' noticeboard), to wit: A "consensus" that goes against Wikipedia principles and policies is not a legitimate consensus. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 07:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * feel free to challenge the close. I don't remember the case all that well, but if you think the close merits discussion feel free to do so.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  08:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just replied on the ROGD talk page about this, sticking a notification here encase you see this before you see that. We might be able to solve it without a closure review. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you, maybe... stop and think before rushing in where angels fear to thread, when it comes to RFCs? They should be a last resort, generally, after adequate discussion.(*) When they do get started, they should generally be let either run their course, or, at the very least, let be run for at least a week when they're started on a major holiday - like, e.g., Christmas friggin' Day! (*) This should be the case even where drama-hounds who are unprepared to put in the work themselves are egging on the ensuing drama with copious one-liners and trollish questions. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * is your comment addressed to me? If so could you rephrase it? Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is addressed to you. The drama-hound I refer to is not referring to anyone in this discussion. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Multiple editors were calling for a snow close, there was basically one or two saying no versus an overwhelming majority saying yes. I asked in the discussion page if anyone would be bothered by my closing it, and only did so 48h after ensuring that the relevant WikiProjects had been notified. I would have waited longer if the oppose votes had a strong basis in policy or fact, but both of them referred to the word "anti-trans" not being used in sources even though sources did. I know I tend to be impatient,, but in this case I really don't think waiting more would've done any better. Next times I'll wait a week rather than 48h, though, to avoid this issue. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  08:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Less than two months ago you created an RfC at Talk:J. K. Rowling on 15:57, 25 November 2021 (Thursday / Thanksgiving Day)— and closed it on 18:13, 26 November 2021 (one day later). Your lack of impartiality and neutrality in this specific RfC (opening the RfC / commenting in the RfC / closing the RfC) cannot be ignored. How you've handled these RfCs makes me think that you should not be closing any RfC. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 11:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This RfC was opened on 23:42, 25 December 2021 (Saturday / Christmas Day) — and you closed it on 20:09, 29 December 2021 (Wednesday). Anyone who has even a little experience with RfCs knows that ... barring editors who are attached at the hip to the article in question ... it takes a few days for most interested editors to participate in a discussion. Wikipedia is a voluntary experience, not a job that demands a "9 to 5"-like daily commitment. People have lives outside of being Wikipedia editors, and it may take two or three days for someone to find out about an RfC — particularly when an RfC is opened on a Friday / Saturday / Sunday.  In this case, weekend + holiday = you definitely closed this RfC too early.
 * I have no problem reopening the RfC if you wish for it to be reopened on procedural grounds. I apologize for me not following American or Christian holidays. Regarding the November RfC, please see this archived discussion on my talk page, and this archived discussion on WP:VPP on the need to clarify the closing guidelines. Thus, I don't see a connection between the two. In fact, I learned to ask in the discussion section of the RfC before doing any closures, which is what I did in the ROGD case and many others since. Again, if there is consensus to re-open the RfC on ROGD on procedural grounds I am perfectly fine with that, but strongly believe you should discuss so in the talk page of ROGD as well in order to gauge consensus. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

After a quick glance at the first discussion you linked, and seeing that you created your account on 18:54, 27 September 2020, I would say that no Wikipedia editor should be in a rush to play with all the bells and whistles they can get their hands on — particularly when their shiny new toys can affect other Wikipedia editors. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've said what I had to say, and I stand by what I've said.
 * I'm not entirely sure what your patronizing comment is meant to achieve, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the intent of Pyxis' comment, if not with the way she said it. You are too quick to go down the RfC route, which is probably due to inexperience. I am here 15 years, and I think I've started one RfC in that time, certainly no more than two or three. I don't think I've ever closed one. I have seen many cases over the years where an RfC or AN/I debate or what have you appears to be a foregone conclusion after a couple of days, but then changes over the next while to a 'no consensus' or the opposite to how it had originally seemed to be going. Opening/closing RfCs on major holidays is just never a good idea. I never even saw a notice for this particular RfC, due to reduced time on WP over the holidays (and would have been one of the people saying yes, fwiw!) A formal RfC should be a last resort, after talk page discussion and perhaps mediation/appeals for third-party input.  The average non-admin editor would probably be involved in only two or three a year, from what I've seen. Yes, there are certain editors who seem to just love the drama and will happily prompt for them to be set up (and yet never seem to do the work themselves) - but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to listen to them! Regards, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * as you can see by my comment on the article talk page, I'd appreciate help on how to undo the close without messing with RfC ids and the like. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if something about closes on holidays should be mentioned on the guidelines? Just as an additional case of "not a good idea". A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see another editor assisted in re-opening the RfC - I wouldn't have known how to, in any case. That's an excellent idea about expanding the guidelines. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll bring it up at WP:VPP at some point, then. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

R-rotunda
Your stylistic opinion of the change to the final character, if you please!  Ꞇewꝺaꝛ  (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * it adds flavor! It makes your name slightly harder to read on a first read but after it's perfectly fine. Cool history, too. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was a bit concerned about the readability too, so I've changed it back for now. I spend a lot of time killing my eyes by reading ancient medieval manuscripts (like this one) so I see quite a few r-rotundas. Such a shame that [U+A7C3 (w-Anglicana)] doesn't display on my mobile device (or anyone else's probably!) - that really would look cool I think!  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I really like seeing the long s in older literature, myself.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yef, but they are a bugger to train OCR foftware on!  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Pꝛobably foꝛ the best that I don't use this chaꝛacteꝛ, given Mvbaꝛon's font difficulties! 😁  Ꞇewꝺar   (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * True ^U^ A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Insight request
Hello. I forgot to ping you at Help desk. Could you provide some insight on the problem? Veverve (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

List of most expensive artworks RfC
Hey there! I noticed your responses in the conversation and am wondering if you have thoughts on where to go from here. I haven't been involved in many RfCs -- what's the fair point to draw a conclusion & update the article (or to decide how to update the article)? SiliconRed (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd wait until th RfC tag is removed (30 days after the RfC is started), . Where to go really depends on what the closure is. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Copy that! I guess I was a little early with the proposal, then (but... hopefully it is still helpful). Do you think it is worth closing "Separation of NFT sales and artwork sales", the earlier discussion? A few people are still adding comments there & I'm not sure they realize the RfC replaces that conversation. SiliconRed (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to leave that discussion open, . Partially because (as you say) people are still adding comments there, and partially because it serves to weed out the long rants from the RfC, which is being home to much more concise and policy-driven arguments. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense! Thanks for the commentary. 😊 SiliconRed (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite at the pump
Thanks for the invite at the pump. First, my best attempt at describinbg the big fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem is at How Wikipedia notability works A lot of what makes the whole thing so mysteriously complex is trying to reconcile SNG's with GNG. But right now we sort of need the SNG's (except for sports :-). A part of the issue is thaty the SNG's are needed / crutches for / enablers of / prevent solving weaknesses in WP:GNG. Another is discrimination against topics that don't have an SNG. Some enclyclopic ones that don't have an SNG either need one, or an improveent in wp:GNG so that we don't need 50 new SNG's to take care of those. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Getting started
Can anyone help me editing my user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppet reel (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle


Hello, A. C. Santacruz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated, . I should've speedy deleted that a long time ago. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alt account
Hi! I've made this account in case I accidentally log out while out and about, as the password for my main account is stored in a KeePassX database on my computer. Just thought I'd leave a notice here for any page watchers that might wanna watch my alt account as well. A.C.S.Alt (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Statue of Israel Putnam&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Shadow docket&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Ethel Barrymore Theatre&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Kenneth Lawson&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2017 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy and &#32; Talk:1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González on "Social sciences and society" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Minnesota State Capitol, &#32; Talk:Minnesota State Capitol Mall  and &#32; Talk:Minnesota State Capitol artwork on "Art and architecture" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2021 North Kosovo crisis&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 09:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Devolution in the United Kingdom&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with reviving Wikiproject Finance & Investment
Hi! I'm planning on reviving the Finance WP in the coming months/year and wanted to get some tips or advice from y'all on how to go about doing so or some ideas on things to do first. The areas I feel might need most work in the first few weeks/month are: 1) determining some kind of coordination system for the revival process, 2) determining the big areas the project will need to focus, 3) improve how the wikiproject attracts and retains new editors. Feedback on these areas or guiding WikiProjects in general is much appreciated. Pinging some coordinators of WPs: A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I've never had to revive a WikiProject but this might be useful (even though it's old). Good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  14:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you identified the reasons that the WikiProject became inactive? Ideally, you should develop a strategy to avoid a repeat. I took a look at WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Finance & Investment, and it doesn't show a lot of editors active on articles tagged by WPF&I.  (It could be that there simply aren't a lot of articles tagged by the project.)  A more realistic alternative might be to revive it as a task force of an existing WikiProject, like WikiProject Economics. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's because those that created it ( and ) stopped editing Wikipedia. I'm quite confused at the activity, as popular topics like Bitcoin are part of it (although community sanctions and a high rate of editor restrictions on the most popular articles affects this). Reviving it as a task force of Economics would be a good way to go about it, but I'm unsure how one would scope the interest in doing that (e.g. an RfC on the Economics talk page linked in WP:FINANCE). Thanks for the advice, ! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)