User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2023/March

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg The Wordsmith
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fuhghettaboutit · Spinningspark (deceased)



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
 * Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
 * A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news
 * The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
 * The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
 * A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
 * Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
 * The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC closures
Hello. A couple of questions re your RfC closures at WT:E&R: Cheers, Number   5  7  12:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a sub-discussion about whether the documentation to the infobox should make it clear that the parameters should only be used when the information was included in the article (so as not to fail WP:MOSINFOBOXPURPOSE). No-one objected to this (and there were several references to it by users in favour of keeping them), and it seems a reasonable compromise. Would you be able to reconsider whether this should be included in the outcome.
 * While the numbers were clearly in favour of having the parameters, closures are supposed to be based on strength of arguments, with arguments based on policies and guidelines given more weight. As far as I could see, none of the arguments in favour of having the parameters used policy or guidelines as their rationales (aside from WP:IAR), with almost all of them being along the lines of WP:USEFUL/WP:INTERESTING/WP:LONGTIME (i.e. arguments to avoid). On the other hand many of those opposed to their inclusion cited WP:MOSINFOBOXPURPOSE. It would be interesting to know why the non-policy based arguments came out on top.


 * , thanks for coming to my talk page to discuss the closure and I apologize for the too-brief statements I closed the RFCs with. I'm currently busy but will take another look once I'm home and respond. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 13:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , I will be updating my close shortly. While I agree with you that few supporters cited INFOBOXPURPOSE, I do not believe they had to for their argument to satisfy the guideline nor did citing the guideline necessarily make for a strong argument. The guideline itself says to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article [...] wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. An editor saying they believe the information in the parameter is/can be useful and highly relevant to the article is essentially saying the same thing as an editor saying "Yes, I believe the parameter satisfies MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE". Them saying "useful and relevant" does not mean the "useful" invalidates the "relevant".
 * Regarding the documentation to the infobox, I'll include text encouraging editors to provide guidance that the parameters should be used only when the information is in the article. I hope this reply clarifies some of your questions and feel free to ask further ones/discuss in more detail. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also note you should have properly notified the talk page of the template to the RFC discussion, . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 11:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'm just frustrated as most of the users in favour of the parameters are infrequent editors and don't have to deal with the problems having them cause... Oh well... Number   5  7  13:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the frustration, but I couldn't discount their views just because they are infrequent editors. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
 * Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
 * 🇺🇸 TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
 * Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna,  Thebiguglyalien,  Sammi Brie,  Trainsandotherthings,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, 🇮🇩 Juxlos,  Unexpectedlydian,  SounderBruce, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack,  BennyOnTheLoose and  PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Wikipedia:Nominate


Hello, Ixtal. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wikipedia:Nominate".

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. When 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! 23:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bjoern Seibert has been accepted
 Bjoern Seibert, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Bjoern_Seibert help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing! Curbon7 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Proposed decision mentioning you
Hi Ixtal, in the open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. You are not directly affected by any proposed sanction; this is just for your information. Your name only appears on the page because your evidence has been used as a reference twice. Thank you for providing it. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, . I wish y'all luck in arriving at a good decision on how to proceed with the case. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 21:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Continuing my growth
Pinging editors that have been important to my development so far (based on talk page archives and arbcom case):.

Hi! I recently crossed 6000 edits which apparently makes me an "experienced editor", although I think I am anything but. However, I thought it would be a useful excuse to ask some friendly editors I respect and have interacted with for some feedback on myself as an editor. I feel like I have tons of room to grow and many things to learn, but wiki tends to only give users feedback when they've made mistakes or are seeking to become admin (which I am not), so I thought asking on my talk page would be a good way to go about it. What are some things I can do to be a better editor and/or be more helpful to the community? — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 14:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey Ixtal. I hope you get some good feedback. I'll do some thinking, and I'll probably email you my thoughts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated,, email is fine with me. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 14:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this, but it still might be a while. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I am unfortunately no Kongming; I possess no great abundance of wisdom, intelligence, or strategy. But I do possess experience, spite, and your respect. The latter shows that there are things on which we agree, and therefore the advice I have will be more agreeable to you. That advice is such: pursue a Triple Crown; involve yourself in the relevant content review processes at your own pace, but guided by the highest commitment to reliability, verifiability, and brevity. The latter especially is important and must be constantly practiced. As you go, be always amenable to suggestions made by reviewers, and to other modes of doing things you may see in work you review. The adage is "practice makes perfect", but perfect is subjective and ever evolving. Perfect is moreover the enemy of good enough. Thus critique shall make perfect for our purposes just as much as practice. Temper my advice to review and be reviewed, however, with some more advice: for a while, be the latter, so you can more effectively be the former. Seeing and responding to different reviewers and their style will allow you to compare and contrast and develop or refine a style inspired by your experience. This should be powered by empathy—add rejoinders to the effect that you are also fallible. Let yourself be dissuaded from some comments and be prepared to learn that this or that is presently beyond our power for this or that article. Participation in more of Wikipedia's processes will also naturally lead you into collaborations with other editors, and friendships with them. These, usually, are good; I will never as long as I edit forget User:Farang Rak Tham and all that I learned reviewing his work and having my work reviewed by him. To further underline the important of making and having friends, he was recommended to me as a reviewer by our mutual friend Gerda. But beware the formation of cliques and factions; remember your friends are also fallible. Many editors have died (metaphorically) on some very dumb hills for the sake of a friend's honor. Do indeed be a User:Buidhe and intervene against nonsense on a friend's talk, but if you find yourself connived against, seemingly, by a confederacy of dunces... ask yourself who the dunce really is. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  17:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, I am honored to hear you consider me someone who has been important to your development on Wikipedia. My main advice would be to spend more time editing in article space. Per XTools, only 17% of your edits (exactly 1,001) are in mainspace. In my experience, all of my worst moments on Wikipedia involved things outside of mainspace, getting into disputes or other things I don't enjoy. At times this has sapped my desire to edit. I've since worked to edit mainspace more, and now 42% of my edits are to mainspace (it's skewed this month and the past month as I've been active at CCI, particularly WP:DCGAR). Everyone is different, and it isn't wrong per se to have a low mainspace percentage, but I think you might enjoy editing more if you work on articles. I remember talking to you and you indicated interest in subjects relating to Spain. As someone with an excellent understanding of both English and Spanish, you have to potential to make a real difference in the coverage of Spanish-language topics on enWiki. All of this doesn't mean you have to send things to FA or even GA (but if you want to, I am happy to offer advice/guidance, I've found it very rewarding personally). There are plenty of articles on notable subjects still waiting to be made, and literally several million existing articles that need improvement. I've found you're a dedicated editor and your heart is in the right place. Openly deciding you don't want to be an admin actually is liberating. You can do whatever you want without worrying if you're doing 'admin' activities like closing AfDs. Don't feel like I'm discouraging you from editing in projectspace, because I'm not at all - I just think you might enjoy working in mainspace more. WP:OWB point 59 is something I keep in the back of my mind: When an editor ceases to contribute to articles, but instead writes only in the Wikipedia space, on talk pages, and arbitration cases, and when more than half of that editor's contributions are in conflicts, either beginning or prolonging them, then that editor is very close to departure. As with stars on the main sequence, some departures are shrinkings into dwarf states, with ever-diminishing contributions, giving little light, and with a long decay; and other departures are violent supernova explosions, spewing waste matter and hot gas in all directions. I don't ever want to become someone who spends all his time in WP space and stops building articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Like Vami IV I think it's important to recognize that building the encyclopedia is our core function as editors; I am not the only one who finds that mainspace contributions where I can directly fulfill that purpose are most fulfilling. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ixtal, I agree with everyone who's already commented above, and like TAOT, I am honored that you consider me to have helped your development on Wikipedia. In my opinion, we all have room to grow - none of us is perfect - but acknowledging mistakes is a good indicator of growth, as with [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#RfC_on_leaders_seat_election_infobox_parameter these RFCs you recently re-closed]. I think that is one thing you have been doing well.Ultimately, we're all (hopefully) here for the same purpose, which is to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage. While a GA or FA would help with that, it also is not compulsory; even relatively small edits can be helpful. For example, you mentioned before that you were interested in finance and economics - in my experience, that is a topic area that has plenty of room for improvement. (I don't know much about Spanish topics or art subjects, unfortunately, so I can't speak to those.)I also agree with TAOT's comment regarding mainspace editing. You have said that you don't want to run for adminship; this can be seen as a good thing, as you don't have to focus on admin tasks for fear of what future RFA voters may think. I would encourage you to focus more on mainspace articles if you're not running for adminship, since, at least in my experience, it's more rewarding than administrative work. To put it another way, five years from now, would you remember what RFCs you closed during this time, or which discussions you participated in? I'm also not disparaging your projectspace work, but that's just some food for thought. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I find article work more rewarding once its done and looked forward to focusing on that when I stepped off ArbCom. Then I decided I needed to stay on ArbCom because I felt an obligation to serve in that way and so I again find it hard to get into the mindset that lets me do mainspace effectively. This is all a long way of saying, that if you don't plan to go the admin route I am going to strongly disagree with everyone above. You should keep doing whatever brings you satisfaction on Wikipedia. Live your best WP:VOLUNTEER life. Many days what causes me to edit is a sense of obligation rather than joy and I have to find my fulfillment in the macro rather htan the micro (and I do). All those people giving you advice to edit mainspace are saying that because that's how they live their best wiki life and frankly I'm so glad that they do. But it doesn't have to be your path. There are limits to what you can do as a non-admin project oriented editor. But many editors significantly impact the project in that role and so it's entirely possible you never chafe against those limitations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the ping. I wish you good luck in all your endeavors, . I always have appreciated your humbleness, and it has been my honor and joy to have worked with you.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1919 Copa del Rey Final
The article 1919 Copa del Rey Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1919 Copa del Rey Final and Talk:1919 Copa del Rey Final/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1919 Copa del Rey Final
The article 1919 Copa del Rey Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1919 Copa del Rey Final for comments about the article, and Talk:1919 Copa del Rey Final/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)