User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 4

Modest flowers
Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

section closing
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&curid=13011751&diff=1014918483&oldid=1014914935 this edit]: I'm puzzled as to why you did this. It's unusual to close part of an ongoing discussion with a summary statement. It gives your interpretation of what was discussed in that section greater prominence. I feel it doesn't help contribute towards a collaborative environment. isaacl (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion has clearly moved on from that area to elsewhere. Providing a summary for those who may not have followed since the beginning was my intent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. Nonetheless, I feel it gives undue weight to one person's view. There are times with large conversations where it might be helpful, but I don't believe this conversation was sufficiently large to warrant it. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I spent about 15 minutes crafting it and going through the comments by all editors so I don't think it gives undue weight to my views - I tried to pick the gist of everyone's comments. If you think I missed anything important feel free to tell me/add it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean your personal view on the topic, but your interpretation of what were the key takeaways from the discussion. Though I'm still not convinced of the need to have a summary, I appreciate your placing the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&curid=13011751&diff=1014934014&oldid=1014933734#Discussion summary in a collapsed box]. isaacl (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christians, awake, salute the happy morn
The hooks scheduled for Easter are already in queues so I couldn't make that date request work when I promoted the hook. You could try asking if an admin can switch out one of those hooks for it on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for removing the self-nominated prod from my stub article. The self-nomination was a test to see whether other people thought that my content is worth keeping. Apparently, somebody else also attempted to write an article on the same subject (also in Draft: namespace) and it got deleted as a duplicate of mine (which started in mainspace, got speedied, then undeleted and removed to draft namespace, and finally put in its present location.)

Since this topic is related to my occupation I suppose I should improve the article... when I have a chance.... Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah tribute
You appear to be both supporting and opposing the proposal? P-K3 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting reposting some of Yoninah's best hooks, but not mentioning them directly to our readers on the main page (i.e. keeping the symbolism for us). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm just not sure the RfC is set up to reflect that position. Hopefully the closer will figure it out. P-K3 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I think the Support position is exactly yours, there is no proposal to mention her directly. As it stands I think your Oppose is just cancelling out your Support. P-K3 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind me cancelling my !vote; the formatting was confusing. Hopefully I've done a few changes to make it clearer now? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was confusing. That's much better, thanks. P-K3 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussions
Hello, RandomCanadian,

First, thanks for helping me out with the question on Drmies' talk page. Your quick thinking was appreciated. Second, whenever you close a discussion--which is perfectly fine for you to do at the appropriate time--please add either at the beginning of your close or by your signature. This will place "" on your closing comments. For some editors, they want to know if a close was done by an admin or an experienced editor so this is just about transparency. It's typically done on WP:ANI. Thanks again for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't say no to a request like that, hadn't though of that before (I personally don't really fuss much about it, but I understand some editors might not subscribe to WP:NOBIGDEAL as much as others - or at least given the recent massive RfC over desysoping and of course what some say about RfA, that's likely the case). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. Your close was perfectly fine so that's not an issue. But since some folks care, we just add that bit. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

AFD discussion
Hi RandomCanadian! I would advise not reverting 's vote in this discussion any more - the user is just going to restore it back, and then it becomes edit warring territory - obviously not good. I completely understand your suspicions about the user, but let's let the SPI report come to a close, and we can move on from there. I just don't want to see you get sucked into a dispute or edit war between the two of you, and I don't want to see you get heat or get blocked over it. Just relax... if you're not Icewhiz, then you have nothing to worry about at all. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I've justed filed an ANI thread since AfP (eerily similar to AfD, no?) is quite noticeably NOTHERE - do I really need to give them a notice? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RandomCanadian - Yes. If you've filed an ANI discussion that involves, you must notify the user on their user talk page that you've done so. You can use ~ to do so easily. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   04:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I should really have added that really to the question. In any case, they're already blocked so that's it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup! Easy peasy! I left you this note because I really didn't want to see you get sucked into edit warring or anything else with the user... not over something silly like this. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And now I've wasted away an hour of my time when I could have been reading a book or something about this pesky discussion in a bid to help clean-up the current issues with these articles (Crusades and Crusading are pretty much on the same topic...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, If I had $1 for how much time I've had to waste toward LTA accounts, harassment I've received, ridiculous accusations, the works... I'd be plenty well off... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Last request regarding this, since I can't see: is AnnieGrannyBunny == All for Poland? Or at least do their requests look frivolous enough that they might be socks of each other (and ultimately of a so far unknown, at least to me, master)? In any case the G5 treatment on the relevant bits of the SPI (as done by Amanda previously) might be appropriate. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Willma Gendb
There was nothing inexplicable or puzzling about it at all. The entire point of draft space is to guide new users in the article creation process — so if a draft is too advertorialized to accept, the correct process is to reject it under the "submission is written like an advertisement" criterion, give the creator some direction as to what we're actually looking for in terms of writing tone and sourcing, give them a reasonable (but obviously not unlimited) opportunity to improve it, and then delete it only if and when they've failed to improve it in a reasonable time frame. Drafts are not routinely deleted right away for being advertorialized — yes, it has happened, but it's in no way the norm. The standard process for drafts is "give creator feedback on the problems, and give them a reasonable amount of time to fix said problems", not "rush it into the garbage can right away for exactly the same reasons as it would have been deleted in articlespace" — because giving new users feedback and guidance in creating proper Wikipedia articles is the entire point of draftspace in the first place, and its entire purpose is completely defeated by treating it exactly the same as articlespace. Bearcat (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When I leave a message on your talk page, I'd expect to get an answer there. Anyway, IMHO, there's a clear difference between rejecting good faith drafts which need some improvement, and speedily rejecting COI self-written biographies which are of a clearly self-promotional nature. I would not have written to your talk page if there was no criticism of your "inexplicable" decline at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Willma Gendb... In addition to strong discouragements, AGF and all, COI editors should be pointedly given notice when their self-written articles do net heed such calls for caution and are so clearly promotional that there's nothing to save from them. If they're not here solely to promote themselves, being told about the problem directly is likely to help them steer clear of future such poor efforts better than making them think their article just needs some minor improvements because "it's written like an advertisement". Also  who apparently fell on the user page (which was a carbon copy of the draft) independently and then when I pointed that out, apparently agreed with the MfD's calls to similarly delete the draft. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  13:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the one who originally said the decline is inexplicable and it is. The standard for G11 might be lesser in draftspace but it is not exempt from G11, which you heavily implied. It's nothing but a raging advert with no salvageable content. The solution for dealing with promotional material that is irredeemable (and particularly about non-notable subjects) is not declining or rejecting and giving the author(s) false hope of improvement, it's deletion. TAXIDICAE💰  13:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Thewhitebox/Walmartsucks.com
Hello, RandomCanadian,

This draft was just edited in March so it does not qualify as a CSD G13 which requires six months of nonbot inactivity. It is also the subject of a MFD discussion.

Please check the edit history of any page you wish to tag for deletion. You might also want to review Criteria for Speedy Deletion to better understand the criteria and when they apply. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was indeed edited in March... to be nominated for deletion... I don't think that really qualifies, does it? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoheadings
I'm not sure how it impoves the encyclopedia to make it less accessible, which seems to be what you're saying, and I don't want to further derail the closure discussion. I'd appreciate it if you could explain further. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When there are so few notes, NoMad,_Manhattan (as I just fixed it) is better than Special:Permalink/1019687566, no? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh sure, I have no problem with either. My problem is specifically with using bolding to create a fake section heading (as in ), because a screen reader doesn't understand it the same way a sighted person would. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"books and other publications"
I feel your pain regarding Francis Schonken's resistance to your change at wp:NOT. I've done what I can so far to help you out by adding (a) a link for "context information" and (b) the "showing encyclopedic merit" text. I'm thinking that is enough to support this edit. That said, what do you think about trying to add "publications" (without the "books" part) to the simple listings paragraph?Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was an improvement. I avoid making a comment at the recent thread because I don't have much to say. Hopefully our colleague now has the opportunity to self-reflect on his sometimes arrogant and acerbic attitude (the edit warring et al. are symptoms of that, I think). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet another lab leak discussion
Discussion appears to be heating up at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2. The SARS-CoV-2 article has avoided the worst of the disruption until now, but it seems that it can avoid it no longer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a particular issue with that discussion. The MEDRS sources at WP:NOLABLEAK are rather clear this is a FRINGE position, so the only issue is how, or even if, it can be presented without being UNDUE. Adding the extra information from the MEDRS sources (try something like expanding the first paragraph at COVID-19_pandemic) and updating the current text wouldn't hurt, though. Also don't WP:CANVASS on my talk page? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Chernobyl close
Hi, I didn't !vote in the Chernobyl RM, but I was watching it with interest. I agree that there was not consensus for the proposed change (making Chernobyl a primary redirect to Chernobyl disaster), but I'm wondering if you considered whether there was consensus for the option of DABifying the basename? By my rough count, the headcount for dabifying was something like 14 to 5. (I assumed that anyone who supported the proposed move would also support dabifying as a second choice, since it's basically a middle ground between the current state and the state proposed in the nom. Only two users explicitly opposed dabifying, but I also counted any generic oppose !votes as being against dabifying unless they specifically stated otherwise.) Just wanted to throw it out there.

Also, just FYI, I think you forgot to include the tag on your close. Colin M (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I found the argument by persuasive as far as policy (consistency, naturalness, primary topic) is concerned, and his argument was supported by many (note that his comment, along with Lugnut's, seem to have significantly changed the direction of the discussion, judging by the !votes before [mostly "support"] and after [mostly "oppose" or "dab page"]). The concept of a dab might be a valid one (although the current use of hatnotes seems to be a working solution in getting readers to their intended target), but here is why I didn't close the discussion that way:
 * "Chernobyl, Ukraine" was proposed, but some objected to that as it could be ambiguous, and on general policy grounds, and these arguments were not addressed. Accepting a dab with a move to that suggested title would have been a supervote as there was no consensus (at best, there was some embryonic discussion about that title)
 * Other users supported a dab page (with policy based arguments, such as Lugnuts) without suggesting which title the page should be moved to ("support moving the city article to some other title"...) - this would of course not have been possible to implement without a consensus for a title.
 * Finally, moving to a disambiguation page requires that there be some form of consensus that there is no suitable primary topic. There was, indeed some dispute as to whether "Chernobyl" was an appropriate primary topic. Arguments that the city was the primary topic for the current title (such as those by Kahastok, but also by Nohomersyran and Justlettersandnumbers) were generally more comprehensive in terms of policy than those against (such as by Ortizesp, 36.77.93.104 (who appears to be on a dynamic IP, see Special:Contributions/36.77.0.0/16) or BarrelProof) which were generally statements of belief or opinion or even vague waves at policy without much argumentation. Per WP:NOTAVOTE, I was inclined to give more weight to those arguing that the city was indeed the primary topic, therefore closing with a result of disambiguation would not have been an appropriate assessment of the discussion, IMHO.
 * As to the NAC, I'm fairly on the WP:NOBIGDEAL side of things, so unless you can convince me that RMs must be closed by admins... (as far as I know, the general requirement for closing any discussion, whether it be AfD, RfC, ..., is "any experienced editor in good standing, provided implementing the result of the close doesn't require administrative tools [save a few exceptions, ex. TfDs]") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, that all sounds reasonable, I hadn't really thought about the difficulty of identifying consensus for how to disambiguate the city.
 * As for the NAC thing, I didn't mean to suggest that I objected to you closing as a non-admin (I do non-admin closes of RMs myself from time to time), I was just pointing out that you left out the template from your closing message. WP:RMCI says it's mandatory for non-admin closes (though personally I've never understood what purpose it's meant to serve). Colin M (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That thing saying it's "mandatory" seems like WP:CREEP to me, but anyway, I have bigger fish to fry. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Bellville One-Act Play
Hello, This was my first edit so I'm kind of confused. I don't know what counts as significant, can you please help me out. I thought it was significant because its the first time they went to the state competition ever and the only source that published that information was the local newspaper. Can I cite that and would it make it significant? Itchsg (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The local newspaper is usually not sufficient to establish whether something is really significant. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a "summary of knowledge", not a listing of every fact about it's subject. High-schools participate in competitions, sometimes win, sometimes lose, ... That is, most of the time, entirely routine and non-significant stuff. Now, if, say, non-local newspapers reported about the occurrence (I guess this would happen only if something unusual happened along with it), that might be worthy of consideration. Many things that might seem important shortly after the events are really not, and are instead more just observer bias due to being closely related to the events. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS for further guidance. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Itchsg (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Use these tags
Hi. There is a bunch of useful tags used to mark moved discussions moved to/moved from, here are examples: -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I "moved" from AE was my own comment (collapsed at the top) and the general spirit of the discussion (i.e. what to do with persistent Idonthearitis...), so besides the notice given textually I don't think the templates were strictly necessary, but thanks for the heads up. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Routine info and thanks for point me to WP:NPOV
Hi. Thanks for the feedback on May 2021. I have no issue with ur comment regarding NPOV and totally agree with you. It was definitely shabby writing on my part. Regarding routine info, should the same be applied on St Thomas's Church, Oakwood's page? JoshuaMRomero (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Christians, awake, salute the happy morn
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. - The psalms: I think a general article about the psalms and their musical treatment would be desirable, telling such things as metric paraphrases, psalters, and certain composers setting series. In German, we have Psalmlied (psalm song), songs that can replace a psalm in the liturgies. Anything like that in English? - Specifically: could you add to Psalm 115? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are the metrical psalters (Genevan psalter, for ex.); and of course a couple of paraphrases. I'd assume churches which favour exclusive psalmody would employ those. Anglicans of course have their brillant method; although AFAICS hymns based on psalms (such as those by Watts or others) are also otherwise employed - I do not know if there's any place (whichever denomination) where they are substituted as is for liturgical psalms, though.
 * Now, I am personally more involved in French-language usage, but I'm not quite sure that in that instance there is much more besides the old psalters, since there's essentially a dearth of hymns in French because the French protestants were mostly practitioners of exclusive psalmody... There are some translations of hymns from other languages (ex. "C'est un rempart que notre Dieu", and more on that same site). Of course in the Catholic parish where I'm organist the congregation is more used to stuff like post-Vatican II compositions from people like fr:Jo Akepsimas or fr:Joseph Gelineau or more modern ones, but they're all similar in that it sounds and looks (from a theoretical and melodic point of view) closer pop music (repeated notes, sometimes bizarre voice leading in the melody (harmonisations are mostly non-existent, or if they are there then the voice leading is even more dubious), irregular meter, ...) than the hymns familiar to English and German ears. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! A song recommended today is a paraphrase of Psalm 36, written in 1971 by a Catholic author, to a melody of the Reformation from 1525 (and one of the best hymn melodies ever, I'd say), - taking the best of two cultures. It played a role in my life when it was the first church comment after 9/11, before any word was spoken. Singing of "unlimited goodness" then was a challenge, - I remember that every time we sing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for improving an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a fine image, among others! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The individual psalm settings in Psalms is random (pun intended) and useless. Why 126 by Rameau but not van Nuffel, and both knew that psalm as 125. Just one example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * @7&6=thirteen Is there a reason for this act of random kindness or should I just enjoy the spirit? Thanks! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been around a long time, and deserved it for faithful and constant service. I've noticed your edits for a long time, and you earned a pat on the back.  Gnomes deserve love too.  Cheers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Polandball
Hello, i'm DinosaurTrexXX33, I saw that in April, you deleted some part of Polandball in section "Other Countries". Can you please explain why you did this? Thanks, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:V. Information in articles must be cited to reliable sources. Given that none was provided for most of the statements, I removed the information, and summarised the rest. WP:FANCRUFT also suggests that specific details like that might be too much information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a listing of every fact about a subject. If you can find a reliable source which supports the information, feel free to add it back. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for telling me that. DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!
I have been noticing how good your edits have been and I wanted to drop you a note thanking you. Good job. You can expect a little something extra in the paycheck Wikipedia sends you [ Citation Needed ] every week. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"Unnecessary archive pages"
Hi RandomCanadian, I created the "unnecessary" archive pages because there was a manual archive at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 1 and 2 automatic archives at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archives/ 1 and Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archives/ 2. I was just fixing it so that everything is in order. There were 4 because things were in the wrong order some of the time. Hope you understand. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was because the bot was giving a wrong title (for an unknown reason). You could just have moved the two existing bot archives to nos 3 and 4 without bothering. Do check if there's any duplicates now. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I tested the order on a sandbox page, and for some reason the threads didn't line up. There were some threads in the manual one that should've gone to one of the automatic ones and vice versa. I organized things on a page in my talk page and then I divided things. I wanted all the archives to be the same size and I wanted there to be a maximum of 4, but that didn't work out and the 4th one was way overstretched. Thank you for cleaning things up. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, although you probably didn't mean for this to happen, the expansion of the archive pages for Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis have messed up the archives. There are misplaced and duplicate threads across the archives. Just though I should let you know and ask whether I should try to clean it up. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a request
Hi, you marked my article as a G11, I am not mad, I wanted this to be my first Wikipedia article and I wanna get it right, can you help me out, not sure how to not make it seem like an advertisement as it wasn't my goal. I was wondering if you could give me some tips/advice. I'd really like to get this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJames1989 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The bigger issue is that you need to cite independent reliable sources to establish whether the subject is notable. WP:GNG is what you need to take a look at. In short, primary sources, such as publications by the subject (youtube videos, self-published website, social media pages...) and interviews, are not enough. I hinted at G11 because of the poor sourcing, but on second look might have been wrong on that. In either case, I suggest you try to make a better article by starting a draft (Draft:YandereDev) and submitting it to the AfC (WP:AFC) process - editors there might have more time and experience to help you (I noticed your edit, here, since it caught my attention because it cited youtube and similar sources, which is usually not that good of a sign). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your advice!! I'll do this for future reference. The Wikipedia editing game is a lot bigger than originally anticipated, I will be extra careful in the future and I'll make sure I have even more reliable references like articles and such. Have a fantastic day! MarkJames1989 (talk / contribs) 4:14, 16 May 2021 (PST)

DS 2021 Review Update
Dear RandomCanadian,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here. --Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page
Yes, I understand that however I am on a mobile device and it's very difficult for me to navigate. This guy is on a roaming up based in Florida and has been advised numerous times. I can recall  a few years ago I made a "questionable " edit and all these people came out of the woodwork to admonish me and threaten to block or sanction me. Yet this person just gets away with it. Thank you for your advice anyway Doriden (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with POV-pushers
I greatly sympathize with your frustration dealing with the lab leak crowd. I've made only a couple of minor contributions to those threads, and I rarely edit medical articles. My only experience that might be relevant is in the area of race and intelligence, where the RfC this year went smoothly and painlessly and was snowball-closed after a week. The key was that, shortly before, the R&I article and its talk-page had both been given EC-protection for 6 months. This kept out the SPAs, socks, and IPs and prevented off-wiki canvassing, all of which had been an issue in the 2020 AfD and RfC. I never attempted to get sanctions for any of the POV-pushers, although another editor successfully got one of the IPs blocked for attacking me at ArbCom with a cockamamie conspiracy theory. So one thing that might help would be to get all of the threads dealing with the lab leak theory consolidated into a single RfC that would be held at an EC-protected talk-page.

One thing I was worried about with R&I was that good editors would stay away because they'd see it as a time sink and a never-ending headache. But if an issue is dealt with all at once in an RfC to which SPAs, socks and the like don't have access, more good editors will see it as worth their time to participate. Many of the editors who've devoted a lot of time to getting the purely medical parts of the COVID articles in good shape must feel overworked, and so might not want to participate in a chaotic debate (in multiple threads on different pages) with the lab leak POV-pushers. In the case of R&I the magic bullet that solved a similar problem was an EC-protected RfC.

The case for EC-protection can be made at WP:AE rather than ArbCom, and you can describe a pattern of disruption by different users rather than having to build a huge case against any one user. Best of luck. NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your RfC close at Ilhan Omar. Great reasoning in a messy context. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment on Talk of GameStop short squeeze
In the section GameStop_short_squeeze you mention "Using a source from 2016 here would appear to be WP:SYNTH". I am assuming you are referring to the line there "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", since the other is about multiple sources, and here only one source is mentioned.

The explicit statement of the source is for a more general scenario of a Cournot competition, which involves any group of producers/sellers of an arbitrary item. The WallStreetBets members were holding stocks, which is the item that could be sold to the market. Therefore they were the producers/sellers. The source also predicts collusion which is defined as "In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit." Here a "company" is any agent that produces a good, which can be a single person. Therefore it can be concluded WallStreetBets members colluded during the GameStop short squeeze.

You mentioned "would appear to be WP:SYNTH". In light of the above, could you elaborate on that?2602:301:772A:E580:9DB:5D8C:5A3C:7EF0 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the source doesn't explicitly mention WSB, making links to it would be synthesis (SYNTH) or original research (OR), i.e. making a secondary analysis based on your own interpretation of different sources. To take the examples from WP:SYNTH, applied to here, if the sources do not make the connection themselves, then we can't, either, except maybe for blindingly obvious things (If a source says "The Sun is 700000 km in diameter" and the other says "The Earth is about 13000 km in diameter", we can say "The Sun is bigger than the Earth"). But complex analysis is not allowed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning. However, the source is the study of what happened with WSB in the general setting, and established a possible cause in theory. Just as a general research paper may have discovered that dry plants ignite when lit on fire, and then stating that a cause of the Northern California fires of 2020 was arson, which is a specific case of ignition. That dry plants ignite when lit on fire is the general cause and is relevant to the Northern California fires of 2020, even though that research does not explicitly state the Northern CA fires of 2020. Hence, in light of more careful reading of WP:SYNTH, a specific conclusion should not be drawn from the source since it does not explicitly mention WSB. However, as I argued, the source does establish a general conclusion. And because of it's close relationship, the original proposal in GameStop_short_squeeze would be more appropriate: namely to place a link in See also to where the source is mentioned in Econophysics. Should this new proposal be listed in a new section? 2602:301:772A:E580:9DB:5D8C:5A3C:7EF0 (talk)
 * The source you provided is this. That likely has zero relation to WSB, and using it to support material in the article would be original synthesis since what you would be doing is, in essence, analysing the situation based on information from an external source to draw your conclusions. Metaphorically, if a source says that "a duck looks like this, smells like this and quacks like this" but it doesn't say "[Specific example] is a duck", then we can't say it, pure and simple. We leave analysis and conclusions to the experts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The source studies cases with increasing demand, which is what a short squeeze is. In short squeeze, it is mentioned "Purchasing the stock to cover their short positions raises the price of the shorted stock, thus triggering more short sellers to cover their positions by buying the stock." When more people buy after price goes up, this is increasing demand. Note this is also mentioned in Law_of_demand. So the source is very much related to WSB, because it was a short squeeze with increasing demand.2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except the study couldn't be possibly making any relevant claims about the WSB situation, because it's impossible for it to be directly mentioning the WSB situation. As I said, we can only include statements which would be obvious to any generally educated reader. 700000 > 13000 is obvious to everybody even if they don't have any specific formation in maths. "Cases with increasing demand, which is what a short squeeze is, which is what happened, ..." is not. We need to have a study which makes these claims in respect to the WSB situation. Otherwise, this would be WP:OR, and that is not okay (mostly because such analysis might not be as simple as it appears, might be missing multiple relevant factors, etc..., and we have neither the ressources nor the competency to check it, unlike academics writing in relevant publications). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The title of the page is GameStop short squeeze, which is about a short squeeze. In the article short squeeze, it is basic knowledge that this is increasing demand - it is explicitly stated in the excerpt I mention above in the wiki page. So I would argue that for this particular connection it is common knowledge, as that excerpt has no citation. Also, I suggest linking the econophysics section in GameStop_short_squeeze which does mention WSB. Note in GameStop_short_squeeze, the link irrational exuberance leads to the article which has no mention of WSB. So it appears the connection to WSB is not as strict as you mention in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. See alsos are a different matter, since they involve a bit of editorial discretion. Concrete article content, however, is bound by WP:OR very strongly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and feedback. It has been very helpful. One final question: should this modification of the edit to add a "see also" be a new edit request, or a continuation of the previous?2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Give me a few moments: just tell me which article you want exactly to add as a see also and I'll take a short look and add it myself if I think it fits. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article I suggest adding is Econophysics. In particular, the third paragraph of that section. Text that could follow the link would be something like "inevitability of collusion during increasing demand". That paragraph explicitly mentions WSB. Thanks again for your consideration.2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I feel it might be a bit too tangentially related of a link, but at least it seems plausible enough and offers interesting material to interested readers. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)