User talk:Platonk/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Platonk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maid to Order, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clarence Reid and Willie Clark. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conduent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fortune and Prepaid card.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Veterinary Medical Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tradescantia zebrina, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''A source has to actually support the claim. Your supposed source did not even mention the term "Wandering Dude"'' Meters (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Responded on Talk:Tradescantia zebrina where this notice should have been in the first place. Platonk (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 18:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Dog bites and attacks sidebar. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing cited information per WP:GUNREL
Please stop, or slow down, your content removals linking to this. Feel free to replace with or  if you're not going to look for sourcing yourself. I've found one edit already that meets an acceptable use case for a source you've removed here, as WP:RSP says The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not assume I haven't evaluated each and every edit I've made. Read WP:GUNREL again (specifically, "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person."), then WP:GOSSIP. I will happily use BSN or CN if warranted, but never for gossip content in a BLP.
 * Re Breitbart News: If you look at the content where Ben Shapiro/Daily Wire utters vitriole about Steve Bannon/Breitbart News, and Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP) writes of Daily Wire, "There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting," (tagged as Generally Unreliable) and the removal of the content (and citation) doesn't affect the reader's understanding of the topic, then I can infer that what you want to include (and what I had removed) is gossip. Perhaps WP:BLP should apply since the comment is directed at Bannon even though it is inserted into the article Breitbart News. The inclusion of Shapiro's comment is unnecessary. That it may be "an acceptable use case" is, frankly, irrelevant.
 * Re Steve Bannon: Similarly, your reversion of my edit at Steve Bannon complaining that "The Daily Beast is a fine source" is no different. Gossip. RSP writes of The Daily Beast, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Since the removal of the content with citations for Daily Wire and Daily Beast doesn't change the reader's understanding, it should be removed.
 * Re Gina Carano: Similarly, your reversion of my edit at Gina Carano is to include irrelevant UNDUE gossip sourced by two Daily Wire articles. Your replacement citations don't verify for "three popular television reporting services". Yes, I can look further and find this  that mentions TVMaze which is what Deseret News also mentions, but why bother. I don't know what your purpose is, especially with an edit summary of "really?", but who cares about "is she, isn't she" speculations when eventually "she did" as already mentioned in the article at Gina Carano and Running Wild with Bear Grylls.
 * Re Trey Parker: I see you got the idea of gossip and reverted your revert. Thank you.
 * Now I will resume my project, hopefully uninterrupted by further attempts to 'save' Daily Wire citations sourcing gossip/undue content. Platonk (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "project" appears to be a personal vendetta. If a statement is unreliable, then it can certainly be removed, but removing solely because Daily Wire posted it is an incorrect assumption. If a person from the KKK says the sky is blue, that doesn't suddenly make such a claim false. It means that the statement can/should be questioned, but it may still be a fact. You've removed more than just Daily Wire claims. Likewise, Daily Wire claims about themselves may still be accurate depending on context (example: "On  Daily Wire published an article in which they stated...") By definition, that statement indeed can be verified as a primary source.
 * Context is everything. Buffs (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit in particular is an excellent example where you are removing a valid primary source. Buffs (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Daily Wire is not a RS. Period. Don't use it as a source, and you really shouldn't read it, unless you're just doing research to see what kind of nonsense unreliable sources are posting. See: Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very succinctly put. 👍 Platonk (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wiki guidelines on WP:GUNREL & WP:BLP are clear. Whether or not the facts are true (as said by an unreliable source) is irrelevant. If one cannot find another source that says it, and the content doesn't really add value to the article anyway, then we're supposed to remove it. Suggesting that such [removed] edits were okay to keep based on specifically mentioning who said exactly what flies directly into the teeth of GUNREL because it is not an "exceptional circumstance", not an "uncontroversial self-description", and violates "never be used for information about a living person". If you have any further issues about any particular edits I made, please take it up on the Talk page of the article in question. You can tag me there. Platonk (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see...we're going to go with gaslighting and demonizing your enemies...
 * Let's just start with BRD:
 * Here is the original state of the article which has existed unchallenged for ~3 years
 * Here is the first bold edit (removing the Daily Wire citation)
 * Here is my reversion
 * By definition, BRD should have stopped there and a talk page discussion ensued. Rather than admit that, Valjean decided to violate discretionary sanctions by engaging in edit warring (he readily admits he knows the DS on the top of his talk page) and reverts the reversion noting it's a deprecated source. I provide the appropriate link to an archived view and explain why it fits as a primary source and Snooganssnoogans reverts out of no where and warns ME about edit warring, but not Valjean. So, instead of an honest discussion, we have gaslighting, gaming the system, and insults taking place from liberal activists/veteran editors supporting such uncivil behavior with threats of blocks when they know they are engaging in edit warring. When ALL conservative opinions are labeled “unreliable”, you’ve completely lost neutrality.
 * As a leading conservative, Shapiro’s opinions are indeed notable and the document at hand is a WP:primary source (and clearly labeled as such): "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So, indeed, "Whether or not the facts are true..." are indeed a point of consideration (by the way, facts, by definition ARE true). Nothing in WP:BLP or WP:GUNREL counters this. As such, it can be used. Then Valjean calls verifiable, noncontroversial facts "nonsense" and insults those who read/appreciate Daily Wire for what it is: conservative opinion. Thanks for poisoning the well (really makes things nice and WP:CIVIL! #sarcasm).
 * It's "funny"...Valjean has never edited these articles before I did...
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Perhaps brushing up on WP:Wikihounding, WP:PRIMARY, WP:N, and many others might be in order here...
 * Instead of edit warring, threatening, gaslighting, wikistalking, etc and why don't we actually follow the oh-so-holy BRD process, admit YOUR actions violate it (among other policies), YOU revert, and then we can have an honest discussion. Until then it's painfully obvious you aren't serious and, instead, are out to bully people until you get your way via misinterpretation of WP policy and uncivil behavior. Buffs (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Platonk, by definition, an opinion by a person is a "self-description". There isn't anything particularly controversial about the statement, so it's uncontroversial. It doesn't violate BLP as it is clearly labeled the opinion of someone; there is no accusation of impropriety here by the subject of the BLP. Buffs (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken that a published opinion about someone else is a "self-description". I'm quite sure that the term "self-description" in Wikipedia guidelines is not a proxy for "attributed opinions". Platonk (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of References in Surrogate (film)
I will take the discussion of the removal of references to here, so as not to distract from the AFD, and because I don't want to seem to be scolding you when I mostly agree. There are two separate issues, one of which I think we should ask about at a policy forum in the near future, and another where I think that you made a good-faith mistake. You removed references 1 through 3 because they were external links that were not relevant to the article. I agree that they were not relevant to the article, but I think that you misread the guideline. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember. It says: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references". Items 1 through 3 were useless inline citations.

The other issue, which we can discuss at a policy forum in the near future, has to do with the timing, removing useless references while an AFD is running in which another reviewer has said that the references are useless. I think that your timing was less-than-good because, as you noticed, you changed the numbering, and because, after I had said what was wrong with the references, you took them out so that other editors would not see them. I think that this is an interesting question to discuss further somewhere else.

Anyway, we both agree that the film does not pass film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Those were not inline citations. A citation is not simply 'text with a superscript number following it'; it has an express purpose. A citation is something that supports the text and allows a reader to verify the content. Those were external links. I point you to the sentence following the one you quoted to me: With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Per WP:CS:EMBED, Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product ...". Writing something in the style Louise Siversen, (which is how it was) is no different than writing it as Louise Siversen. It is an external link. A citation would be something which supports the material. The louisesiversen.com.au website has no mention of the film at all, so the link was not placed as a citation. (The placing editor has since been indefinitely blocked.) Even if the actress had mentioned the film, it would be a primary source and of limited or no value as a citation. Leaving such junk in an article can skew the results of an AfD when potential AfD-voters only look at an article with a cursory glance.


 * I did not even read your comment entry at AfD before deciding to edit the article — it was long, indented strangely, and looked like the same content I'd read before from you on multiple AfDs (and at NFF). I didn't realize it included a list of the then-eight citations until I was ready to post a notice in the AfD that I'd edited the article. My decision to edit the article came after reading these comments on the AfD (a notice of which arrived from my watchlist as those comments were posted after mine). So I decided to check the article to see if indeed "Principle photography ... has finished, it is in post-production, and release is imminent" and if there was any "evidence of reader excitement in anticipation of the movie". I found neither. Incorrectly-placed or -used external links is 'my thing' and one of the first errors I will notice, and correct, in an article. So I did it there, too.


 * I already apologized that my edits messed up the numbering in your table on the AfD. I apologize again for that. I'm sorry that it has bothered you; that was not my intent at all. In fact, I was impressed by your comments on NFF(talk), agreed with your viewpoints, and want to support your efforts to clarify NFF to reduce these similar AfDs of articles on non-notable upcoming films. Platonk (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Cattle, you may be blocked from editing. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your insults were vandalism; my removing your insults was not. My original edit was an offer to help the talk page discussion by showing a dictionary definition that could have explained how the article and redirects got to where they got... not to give you fodder to insult Americans, repeatedly , and then attack me     for following the "No personal attacks" policy by removing your insults  : "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor, and "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as ... blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored."  Vandalism refers to "editing deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". Your insults could be classified as vandalism or a personal attack; my removing them would not. Civility is a cornerstone of our community editing here at Wikipedia. I gave you a level 1 harassment warning and you responded by giving me a level 3 vandalism warning? Preposterous! From this point forward, do not use my user talk page any further unless you're willing to apologize. Platonk (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Cattle
Hi! At Talk:Cattle I've reverted some edits by an IP per our guidance. For consistency I've also reverted your removal of a comment directed at you – I hope you don't mind too much. While I see your reasons for doing that, I don't think it really rises to the level of a personal attack. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I do mind. I sent you an email. Platonk (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which I've now read. I've removed the hidden text from the page, but I don't see that revdeletion is justifiable. You are of course welcome to ask the opinion of another admin; WP:ANI is also an option, but I don't think this would gain much traction there. Sorry if this is not what you want to hear, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I asked. Platonk (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help cleanup and fix cite. Thanks you. Sussier (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Platonk (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some sources are dead. Sussier (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not interested. Platonk (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not everything needs a template
Hey, how come you thanked me for posting those messages on the WikiProject Templates talk page and the Unused Templates Task Force talk page I created? Did you happen to read my essay and agree with it? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Gosh, my 'thank log' doesn't give me any more information than a time stamp of when I sent a thank, so I had to go digging. Yes, seems to be your two posts which point to your delightful user essay, Not everything needs a template. Yes, I liked your essay!


 * You see, I'm currently wrestling with a mess of 80+ templates, consolidating them into just 12, and I'll delete the other 70 or so. It's a huge undertaking involving hundreds (thousands?) of articles. My project workspace is WikiProject Ethiopia/Templates/Woreda templates, if you'd like to view the scope of it.


 * My first foray into creating a sidebar navbox to join together a "set" of 10+ articles was aggressively co-opted and stripped as "advocacy" and accompanied with bizarre comments from an editor. I thought I was helping; but I left that hot potato category alone. My second attempt (completely different genre/subject matter, but similar purpose/use of sidebars) was successful, Template:Tigray War timeline sidebar. Platonk (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your scope is interesting. I'd say keep working on them. Although, that this is a lot of templates that will become obsolete once you're done. Wikipedia has a lot of issues with template creation. If you're interested in joining the task force I created, the Unused Templates Task Force and help reduce the backlog as a side project, you're welcome to do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * After the template work (which is interspersed with a project to clean up 106 spam articles one editor made, and the occasional rummage through WP:CLEANUP), then there's the categories. I swear, the whole area is like a young kid's level of organization, and I come in and everything is in a heap in the middle of the floor and I say "the books go on the shelf, coats and shoes in the closet, pencils on the desk, and socks in the drawers!" Worse, is that the country keeps reorganizing all its "regions, zones and woredas" with the frequency of rotating car tires, so there's always articles to change when Woreda W which was in Zone Z of Region R suddenly becomes Woreda W in other-existing-Zone S of Region (oh wait, it's a brand new region) Zed! Working on it challenges and satisfies my sense of organization and, since no one else is working on it, few edit conflicts.


 * In the end, I will probably introduce one huge mass AfD/TfD/RfD to 'empty the trash' of all those obsolete templates and redirects to templates. I might then come join you over at Unused Templates Task Force. Platonk (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wurgessa massacre
Hi Thanks for responding! I'm answering here since the discussion closed after my !vote. I did not miss this history you allude to, but try not to do spite. It is human so I understand. These mass creations are annoying. I looked at the facts of the matter, disregarding this wider context, and still decided I should support the AfD. Consider it a testimony of the strength of the case you supported! gidonb (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! There has never been any spite intended. I'm just trying to clean things up in a logical manner that fits with WP guidelines, and that focus on cleaning up articles is how I somehow landed in the whole spidey-web of Tigray conflict articles. I had no prior interest or knowledge on the subject and had to do a lot of reading just to get a sufficient basic understanding to do cleanup edits without making a mess of content. One editor repeatedly using the same new unreliable sources and self-published works in three new main articles plus 106 new and unnecessary [cookie-cutter] spinoff articles, after that editor spent the two prior years refspamming the same author's older works, is sufficient for me to know that the 106 articles were just intended to be more WP:CITESPAM to a very narrow group of author's works, non-branded websites, and Twitter accounts. I don't plan on erasing everything, but cleanup is difficult considering the breadth of the debris field. Platonk (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work, fighting spam! Redirects are cheap so I seriously considered a redirect to a Tigray War article. I decided against it as the publication had this only in an appendix and noted that sometimes events are later removed. That's taking very little responsibility, too little even for a redirect. For keep we need to meet a notability guideline and this was at a distance. I am a member of the Ethiopia project. gidonb (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When I am evaluating whether to change a particular article to a redirect (or nominate for AfD) I always check to see if any other articles wikilink to the article in question. I have found that this particular spammer, in some instances, was creating an article to location+massacre and then editing other articles that mentioned the location and, instead of creating a location article, was linking the location mentions to the location+massacre article. That sort of points to the "intention" behind the act. Platonk (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello. On the National Election Board of Ethiopia article, User:Aschalew musema keeps reverting back to their preferred version without even taking into account my edit summaries or talk page comments. I'm wondering what I should do since they're not listening or responding to my comments and I'm not trying to get into an edit war. I need help with a dispute resolution. Ue3lman (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at it now. I'm certain it's a sock of the prior editor (who got blocked). Trying to put together a report for WP:SPI. Will post an update when I'm through. Just leave the article alone for now. Platonk (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/NEBE Ethiopia Platonk (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't even notice the NEBE account got blocked. Ue3lman (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Help, link bundled articles to deletion discussion page
Hello, you recently took part in discussion of this AFD Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre, based on that i started a AFD a in smaller batch(did before check) of 25 articles, Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination), unfortunately i went wrong somewhere and can't link up a related pages such Megab massacre and other 23 articles to the deletion discussion page, if i remove/replace or change the AFD message according to the steps, it will show an error(i did show preview to check). Can you help me in linking that article to the deletion discussion page, so that i can learn from the diff and repeat for the other 23 articles?? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me look. Platonk (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. Instead of using each individual article's name in the AfDM template of the other 24 articles, use the heading for the first new AfD. In this case, each article should mention "page=2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination)". See my first test edit here. Platonk (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, i appreciate it!! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

move from Tedros Adhanom to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Hi - Thanks for your very helpful responses to both of my posted questions. This proposed move was disallowed because the full name is a redirect, and I'm not familiar with WP procedures and terminology. My proposed reason was publications and most news articles refer to "Ghebreyesus". Also, I think the lead should have a very brief explanation of both names following Tedros, but was unsure how best to describe it. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Back in 2015, they renamed it from 'Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus' to 'Tedros Adhanom' based on his Twitter account. LOL, we're not even supposed to use Twitter as a reliable source. Today, his verified twitter account name is 'Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus'. Perhaps it's just a permissions problem and you should request it at Requested moves. Surely someone with the right permissions can swap the two around (article and redirect). When you submit it, tag me here and I'll go add my 'support' to the discussion. Platonk (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sheesh! I don't even know what they're talking about there, filled with jargon. I think of myself as being a reader of WP rather than an editor. Sometimes I find problems and fix them if I can with a quick edit. But getting down in the weeds of WP is "Greek to me". I did give several reasons for the move in my original post there, but that's very different from learning to navigate this place. I just don't have the energy or interest in trying to learn the arcana. How about if I support your request instead? Milkunderwood (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: for "unsure" in my original post here, substitute "at a complete loss" how best to describe it. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I put in a request for this at Requested moves/Technical requests. I don't know if they require comments there or not, so I pointed back to this discussion and Talk:Tedros Adhanom. Platonk (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Might want to take a look at Korarit massacre if you haven't already. Ue3lman (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's another one. I put it on my list. Platonk (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD for Michael D Norton
Hi Platonk! I wondered if you had any spare time over the inter Christmas/New Year period to revisit the AfD on Michael D Norton which you previously participated in. It's become incredibly contentious and it might be helpful to get the views of a more experienced editor on the specific concerns raised by all sides.

If you don't have time or don't feel like it, no worries of course! JonnyDKeen (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess it's fair enough to call me back to place "a" vote since I had withdrawn my vote for the stance of neutral due to lack of time and being tired of reading the essays being posted by the article creator. The discussion seems to have played out long enough. Currently there seems to be 3 for delete (includes the nominator) and 2 for keep (includes the creator, who I think is also the IP editor). Platonk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Template category map
Hey, Platonk, I've created a subpage to map out template categories on Wikipedia. The goal is to sift out any template that could be problematic or don't follow the guidelines. Maybe this could help you in your efforts to reorganize all those templates. And how far have you come for the subpage for the Ethiopia project? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I finished with the reorganizing and editing. There are now just 12 main templates. The only thing left to do is to get deleted the remaining old 155 templates (which are now redirects). You can see the organized list at WikiProject Ethiopia/Templates/Woreda templates. I submitted the first batch (of about 10 eventual batches) to WP:RFD on January 8, and no one has commented or voted. With no one willing to comment, I predict a long haul to get all 155 deleted. My other side project notes are here.
 * But a new project sounds interesting. I'd like to get my head out of a topic where editors are all working independently and not collaborating, are almost all involved in advocacy for one side or the other of an extant military conflict, and whose skills in organizing data leave much to be desired. Whatcha got? Maybe send me an email and we can set up a call or chat session. Platonk (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about the task force I started? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Edaga Hibret RfD
Hi! I've closed Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31. So, you're free to nominate the two redirects Edaga Hibret massacre and Idaga Hibret massacre together, if you'd like to. It's possible that you may get them deleted at RfD. However, given that the target has a list entry with relevant content – mention of an event that can be described as a massacre and which happened at Edaga Hibret – I think it's very unlikely that you'll be able to get consensus for deletion; besides, the redirect used to be an article before the recent WP:BLAR, so the most that an RfD can realistically be expected to achieve at this stage is the outcome of "restore article and send to AfD".

You'd said there were many other similar articles by the same creator, right? If you're still interested in cleaning up in this area, then my advice is to first test the waters with one or two of those articles first. Provided you judge them to be non-notable, you can send them to AfD. If that ends in deletion, you can then try a few more, and if that results in deletion, that will probably then help set the context for the two Edaga Hibret redirects and hopefully spare you the trouble of hopping from one deletion venue to another. – Uanfala (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ani Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)