User talk:Siroxo/Archive 5

Nicholas Lietzau
Hi again. I've been looking deeper at the Eurogamer source, and it only says that Lietzau was lead writer on Endreal, the rest of that information is pertaining to the DLC. Despite this, I do think that this source shows Lietzau passes point three of CREATIVE so have withdrawn the nomination. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I do agree. There are other sources establishing the notability of the main mod, so I think all this needed to provide was verifiability. I added the source to the article. &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/American Unitarian Conference
Hi, I noticed you left a nice table at the Afd. Are you planning to leave a comment.  scope_creep Talk  13:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Koli Taal
Hi, Thank you for the "Keep" comment on Koli Taal. Even though we have enough coverage, that guy nominated my article for deletion. I feel like I am personally attacked by him. Please help. TridentWiki1289 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @TridentWiki1289. I understand, it can feel upsetting to have an article nominated for deletion, but it's almost never personal. People nominate things for all sorts of reasons, sometimes just not familiar with all the guidelines. I think it's pretty clear this film meets notability criteria for films (WP:NFILM). If you feel it should be kept, you can add such a comment to the discussion, there's no rule that prevents article creators from doing so. It's good to be familiar with notability guidelines (like WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, in this case) to contribute to the discussion. Lastly, if you can find more independent reliable sources, now is a good time to add them. &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you so much. TridentWiki1289 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

AFDs
Hello, Siroxo,

I just wanted to thank you for the time and effort you put into your source assessment tables in AFD discussions. They are seen as reliable by other discussion participants and I've seen how they can influence other editors' opinions when they evaluate an article under discussion. In my cursory view, they seem fair which, as an AFD closer, is what I care about. I don't know how much time it takes you compile all of this information but your AFD participation is appreciated! Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Liz, thanks for the kind message! No problem, some discussions do really seem to need an organized analysis, and I try to remain as fair as I can. Honestly, as someone who's sort of "returning" to editing Wikipedia, and more recently AfD in particular, it's great to see all the templates, tools, and guidelines that have grown through the care of Wikipedians, over the past few years. And thank you for your hard work evaluating and closing discussions! &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Siroxo. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. DanCherek (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ramkishan Suthar
Hi, Thank you for the "Keep" comment on Ramkishan Suthar. Even though we have enough coverage, that guy nominated my article for deletion. Article Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please help Atulkulhari007 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2023 Pacific typhoon season&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 03:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Moderator Mayhem
BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Moderator Mayhem for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moderator Mayhem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Moderator Mayhem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Kate the mochii (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, thanks for your contributions Jack4576 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure thing :) Appreciate the note. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2864 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you @Gerda Arendt, this is very kind! I appreciate it. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Non-standard poker hand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday. 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) 06:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Joseph Stalin&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 09:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Michael Stone (criminal)&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 14:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 13:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Siroxo. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Laura Roslin
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

AfD Barnstar!
We've crossed paths a couple of times at AfD (most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Steel: The Honorverse Companion) and every time I can remember I've been deeply impressed by your comments, which show both your talent for finding and evaluating sources and your ability to engage in thorough and well-reasoned consideration of the merits for including an article. Honestly it's inspiring and a real nice breath of fresh air from some of the "deletionist/inclusionist" false dichotomy. You've helped change the way I personally look at AfDs. Thank you! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad you find some of my comments valuable. Yeah, I have made a conscious effort to move away from that dichotomy. I had taken some long breaks from Wikipedia, and after getting really back into editing this year, I found once again that the 5 pillars are really well constructed. Even when I don't mention it in my comments, I often go back to those to determine whether an article should be included, and honestly, all 5 can influence my decision. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 100% agree on the 5 pillars! I've fallen deep into the depth of various SNGs and the debates around terms like "multiple" and "significant coverage" from time to time, and it's been a revelation for me to simply ask myself the question "are the sources we have sufficient for writing a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article". It's easier and feels like it gets at the core of what GNG is describing. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 04:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Thank you for your recent articles, including Serrano Legacy, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I know you know DYKs, but check the script if you haven't. It's very useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, seems useful! I will take a day and consider nominating it. &mdash;siro&chi;o 18:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Madhukar (author)
Hello Siroxo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Madhukar (author), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Articles for deletion/Madhukar (author) was back in 2008. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

About Madhukar (author) and that article's two AFD discussions
I have exercised a community granted privilege to see deleted pages in this matter. I wrote under the bare rationale "it was back in 2008". In Articles for deletion/Madhukar (author) (2nd nomination) it would appear to me best if I recuse from commenting there. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea for what purpose I am being summoned toward this exceedingly boring statement. Why call eleven people and then tell them that you will not say anything about something?
 * Please do not ping me in your response. It will probably be boring too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shirt58 There was a recent ANI about @Hob Gadling's civility for comments like this which got archived without comment. I'm going to reiterate my request for an administrator to look at how they're engaging with people on this site, considering their response to you here, though I don't want to open another ANI. This is the last comment I'll make to draw attention to their behaviour, I want to leave them alone and not come across as harassing them (or bludgeoning the process, which admittedly this undeniably slightly is since the ANI was auto-archived), but I'm deeply bothered that they repeatedly engage with Wikipedians attempting good faith in this way. Consistently.


 * Slight edit, missed you were a former administrator, but I'll leave this statement as the extent of what I'll say to avoid trying to force any drama. Warrenmck (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to leave them alone and not come across as harassing them You failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

About VeVe and promotional tone
Hi there, you flagged one of my articles as being "promotional in tone", could you clarify what exactly is your issue with the article? The article is barebones with a few a facts and also goes into controversy surrounding NFTs.Salsakesh (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:Salsakesh &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks! Always good to come to a respectful disagreement! I recall seeing thoughtful comments from you as well, glad you still participate. &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ido Kedar has been accepted
 Ido Kedar, 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.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Ido_Kedar 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! Vaticidalprophet 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

La Patilla RfC
Hi! I wanted to start by thanking you by closing such an extensive and contentious discussion. I wanted to ask if you would agree with writing La Patilla's description at WP:RS/P. I would do it myself, but I think it would be appropriate being one of the main participants in the discussion. Thank you very much once again! NoonIcarus (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @NoonIcarus: I've tried to add a summary description based on the close. &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks quite good, thank you! --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I also have to thank you for facing the challenge of closing this discussion, though some things remain unclear. You say to "be extremely cautious in referencing coverage of politics", to "Avoid use in contentious topics" and to "Avoid for contentious BLP claims". Would it be more accurate to close the listing in a more similar way to WP:FOXNEWS? For example, La Patilla would be deemed unreliable for politics and contentious topics though marginally reliable for Venezuelan news excluding politics and contentious topics?--WMrapids (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @WMrapids, I didn't see a consensus with that level of clarity regarding politics arise from this RfC. Fox News has had several discussions over the years, one specifically targeted at the question of reliability for politics, so it's not surprising we have a very clear distinction there. &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not clear. On the other hand, Venezuelan politics are clearly contentious, so this clarification is required to prevent future disputes. I attempted to open an RfC, though it appears that this was too close to your closing. WMrapids (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of a general sanction for Venezuelan politics or any related topics that might fit that topic under a "broadly construed" sense.
 * What is currently not clear? &mdash;siro&chi;o 19:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, unofficially Venezuelan topics can be described as "contentious" (not sure why this hasn't happened). Wikipedia was singled out by Nicolás Maduro himself, just showing how controversial Venezuelan topics are. So when you encourage users to be "extremely cautious" and to "avoid use" with sensitive topics, Venezuelan topics are sensitive themselves. WMrapids (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a minor change to the WP:RSP summary to make it a bit more clear what "contentious" refers to in this context. Does this help with clarity? &mdash;siro&chi;o 20:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Biographies are already included in the WP:GS list, so it would be easier to plainly say "avoid use for WP:BLP claims". WMrapids (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Siroxo
Good morning (at least from my side) :). Hope you are doing quite well. How did I do in this closure? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Vanderwaalforces (nice editor name). Thank you for asking! Personally, I think it looks fine. It can be an adventure to take on such a big discussion, and I think you managed to summarize it quite well. While I was involved, I do agree that no consensus was reached. Possibly the only criticism is that the summary is a bit lengthy, but that might have been inevitable in a discussion with four convenience breaks, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Perhaps most importantly, the summary will be helpful for future editors looking to build upon the discussion. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I managed to make sure the summary wasn't long but I guess it ended up being so. And yes, I also think the long summary wasn't a bad idea because as you said it would help other editors to in case of future discussions. Thank you so much for the feedback :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Thanks for this, @7&6=thirteen. Hope I deserve it :) All the best to you. &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for The Serrano Legacy
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hassan Golestaneh
Back in July, we were two of the three editors who voted to keep Hassan Golestaneh. This aritle has been challenged again. I am finding several feature aritcles from the main media of Iran, so am not sure what the problem is. However, with just me responding, it would be helpful to have other opinions--whichever way they feel. It is not my article; I just did a copy edit on it a while back. Rublamb (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Travis Baldree
Hi ;-)

Do you think we can put the draft in main Wikispace (or how it's called?). The man has just won a Hugo Award, so he should have an article on Wikipedia, I suppose? ;-)

Best regards --Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think so, @Kaworu1992. I had been looking to flesh it out a bit more, but sometimes a stub is the best place to start. With Baldree's corpus of work, including Torchlight, the Cradle series, and Legends & Lattes including the recent award, as well as the hype around Bookshops & Bonedust, we can start to build out the article in mainspace. And, readers are surely looking for information about him. &mdash;siro&chi;o 16:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added more to the article and published it. Thanks for the help, and for the prompt! &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Clint Eastwood&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 00:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Rebel Moon&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 08:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Nondualism&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 01:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Honda D engine&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 18:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 03:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 19:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Purdue University Global&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in India&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 11:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 15:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 01:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:List of military occupations&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 03:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Stampy&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 02:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Hiroshi H. Miyamura&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 04:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 02:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Germany&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 02:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Closing Stalin
Your closure of the Stalin image thing was splendid, but it raised a question in my mind. I've seen you on the RfC and AfD boards quite a bit. Your reasoning is impeccable, and you have a really formidable grasp of WP: articles. So I was a bit taken aback by the 'non-admin closure' tag. How are you not an admin? With a few exceptions, there are few people whose rationales are so deeply rooted in policy and, of those, fewer still that I'd trust to make fair and encyclopaedic decisions (even the ones that are clearly wrong because I, arbiter of all Truth, didn't !vote that way :-D ). The lead article on Signpost is bemoaning the dearth of administrators. I would love to see your nom d'encyclopaedia as one of them. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Last1in, thanks for the note! In fact, I was once an admin. I was pretty active in the aughts but was desysopped a few years ago after a long period of inactivity. So my base understanding of Wikipedia's ideals such as the 5 pillars and the related policies is from that period. This year, after returning to editing, I've managed to pick up a lot of the more up-to-date specifics that have changed over the past few years.
 * While I enjoy editing articles, I do always tend to get involved in the more "mop-oriented" aspects of the project. So, I am leaning towards requesting adminship again at some point, and I've gotten offers to nominate me. I think I probably need a few more months to absorb a bit more first. For example, speedy deletion is one relatively important aspect of adminship that I've not been super active in since my return, and there are others too. Cheers! &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Siroxo:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Davey Wreden has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Davey Wreden. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Davey Wreden (November 7)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Davey Wreden and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Davey_Wreden Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiOriginal-9&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Davey_Wreden reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Davey Wreden has been accepted
 Davey Wreden, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Davey_Wreden 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! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing on your close to RFC: Al-Mayadeen
You said "Some editors consider it to misrepresent sources and lie, some describe it as propaganda." and then this was copied to WP:RSP. This is poor English at the very least. Perhaps you meant to say "Some editors consider it to misrepresent sources and published lies, some describe it as propaganda." To me it seems a mis-representation of the RFC as only one editor mentioned lies. Calling it propaganda kinda covers that in any case. Please consider rephrasing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I think noting the opinions and evidence that editors provided around untruth is vitally important to the close as a deprecation. "Lies" and "lying" were mentioned by two editors, but "fake news", "willfully distorts facts", "republished a fabricated news story", "deliberate misuse of sources", etc, and other phrasing was used. I chose to summarize these descriptions with that "misrepresent sources and lie" phrasing.
 * While propaganda should cover all of that, I personally feel that it's a less well-defined term and could be seen as more opinion than directly calling out issues with truth.
 * I've slightly tweaked your suggested phrasing to "Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda." and updated it on RSN and RSP. &mdash;siro&chi;o 20:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for rephrasing. The more I re-read the original phrasing, the more it did not seem that bad, but it did not seem quite right as well. It is hard to put my finger on it. My intuitive sense of English feels better at least. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

CSK - 1 v 3
Hi - just thought I'd continue this here as a good faith comment, without overwhelming the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Progressive utilization theory (3rd nomination), especially because this in practice does not have any significant effect (as far as I can tell). To my mind if someone sent an article to AfD without any text, this would be unambiguously CSK#1, whereas sending with "I hate this" would be CSK#3. CSK#1 notes: "failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion" - so "I hate this" is intelligible (so not 1), but is not an accurate basis for deletion (so 3). Anyway, FWIW, very much appreciate your contributions at AfD, always considered and constructive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I do agree that in such a case CSK#3 is borderline, that's why I recommended keep instead of speedy keep, though I mentioned the CSK in case future editors endorsed and we could close before the 7 days. That doesn't seem likely at this point, and that's quite alright.
 * There is fair gap between something like "I hate this" and an impassioned "The article isn't useful", but I do think it's sometimes worth considering whether such a rationale for deletion is an "accurate" one. I think seeing the "usefulness" discussion fleshed out on the basis merits of the subject matter was, to me, a sign that it was more of a content discussion, which to me is generally not an "accurate" reason for deletion (outside of things like BLPCRIME and such).
 * I do believe I hear your general point here. The above is not meant to dig in my heels, merely to expand my thoughts given the opportunity. &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect we align very closely and I hope this response is seen as just fruitful engagement. I guess I'd be somewhat "absolutist" here, especially noting the difference between an "intelligible" nomination versus an "accurate" one. So for me, I can "understand" when an argument presents itself as "it's not useful", but that's not an accurate ground for deletion, whereas I cannot "understand" (as in recognise) a deletion rationale when someone says it should be merged. Still, the practical effect is a difference with little difference in that the consequence remains the same, whichever side one's interpretation falls. FWIW, I used to find imprecise (inaccurate!) AfD nominations very frustrating, especially when they were from long standing editors/admins, but over time my views have changed.  I think I came to look at it from the perspective of content creation - we make article creation (the process that is) remarkably simple, thus in turn, our process for testing notability should not be substantially of a higher order. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Tyler Sane (08:53, 30 November 2023)
Hello Mentor how do I copy edit --Tyler Sane (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Tyler Sane and welcome! Copy editing on Wikipedia is important, but can be quite daunting. I recommend starting simple: noticing and fixing clear spelling, punctuation and grammar errors is a good way to start. Eventually, articles should largely conform to Wikipedia's manual of style, but don't feel pressure to learn the whole manual up front. One possible area to begin learning is section headings: these stand out in articles as they are larger text, and the guidelines are a bit clear.
 * Now, you may have already seen some pointers to articles to copyedit, but check out . However, if you like, you can simply start reading a section of the encyclopedia you're interested in and click through links, fixing what you come across. You can even use the random page link to browse randomly if you enjoy that. It's good to edit in a way you enjoy :)
 * Also note, if you try to fix a problem and end up getting reverted by another editor, don't worry. Wikipedia uses multiple varieties of English language, and we retain the existing variety, so someone might roll back a change for that reason, and there are other reasons too. It's not personal!
 * I hope this has helped. If you need some more general guidance than what I've given, the basic copyediting guide is pretty solid. Please let me know if there's anything more you'd like to ask. &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of This Boy's Life: A Memoir
Hello! Your submission of This Boy's Life: A Memoir at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

List of leaders of Georgia close
In your close you say, “I didn't see sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1”.

Please explain how showing every other “List of leaders of X” potential title or redirect for every U.S. state X is an unused red link is not sufficient evidence that “List of leaders of Georgia” cannot be commonly used to refer to the governors, or any leaders, of the U.S. state. Especially given that ”List of leaders of X” IS used to title articles for a significant number of countries, especially for countries on the part of the globe with Georgia.

Perhaps you missed the significance. If there was no U.S. state named Georgia, this article would exist at this title, undisambiguated. If the country did not exist, there would be nothing at this title. If that’s not sufficient evidence of PT1 for you, what would be? В²C ☎ 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you're saying here and there is strong logical consistency, and a solid analysis of counterfactuals. However, after analyzing the discussion in depth and including the opinions of all editors who supplied one, I did not have confidence that readers expectations would reflect that same logic.
 * For example, there were other logical arguments around consistency having to do with the consistent disambiguation of "Georgia"-related topics. As such, primarily relying on Wikipedia policy/editorial decisions to determine primary topic didn't develop into consensus for a primary topic.
 * Beyond evidence based on Wikipedia policy/editorial decisions, for example, one editor linked to Google News as evidence of a primary topic, my own enumeration of results from their external link included many from both country and state, and the discussion didn't develop consensus around such evidence either.
 * I hope this helps clarify my thoughts. &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, like many of the opposers, you seem to be conflating the question of ambiguity and particularly PT of “Georgia” with the ambiguity and PT of “List of leaders of Georgia”. Evidence of the former, though undisputed, is irrelevant to this title decision, yet you seemed to take it in account. Is that the case? В²C ☎ 14:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I took all editors opinions in the discussion into account. &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that, but your finding of not "sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1", and particularly of weighing the kind of evidence of ambiguity that is present for any PT, as evidence weighed against the evidence for PT1, is puzzling. For example, I can find plenty of examples of reliable sources using "Paris" to refer to the town in Texas, the film, or the god... does that mean the city in France is not the PT for Paris? Of course not, and we can do that with every single title that has a PT on WP. Yet you apparently accepted such evidence -- citations referring to the governor of Georgia as a leader -- as evidence against this title having a PT. I don't understand that. --В²C ☎ 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe we're speaking cross purposes. I am not arguing with your logic, I'm saying that in the discussion consensus didn't develop around your argument or any concurring arguments. &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But saying consensus didn't develop in a discussion depends on how consensus is determined, and specifically to what degree the arguments are weighed with respect to their basis in policy. It's not clear to me you did that at all, much less how you did it. --В²C ☎ 04:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Many editors don't generally like extremely long closing summaries, and mine was already getting a bit wordy. I appreciate that you have a different preference. I'll try to help here.
 * Several policies were mentioned in the discussion. I'll try to list most of them.
 * WP:MISPLACED and WP:NATURAL only matter if there is a consensus primary topic.
 * WP:CONCISE won't really affect the outcome if there isn't a consensus primary topic.
 * WP:PRECISE relies on "unambiguously defining" topical scope.
 * It's is part of the section of policy is titled "Precision and disambiguation", and the disambiguation section aka WP:QUALIFIER specifically requires a primary topic to avoid a qualifier.
 * WP:CRITERIA refers to much of the above.
 * WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT again only applies when there is a primary topic.
 * WP:RECOGNIZABLE references WP:CRITERIA and also notes that ambiguous titles often aren't used.
 * Ultimately, editors in support and editors opposed were largely referencing the same UPPERCASE and making their claims based on their own determination of whether there was a primary topic.
 * Thus, the entirety of the discussion really did hinge entirely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
 * WP:DPT suggests that determining whether there is a primary topic is up to a discussion by editors, that may be informed by evidence from a list of tools (I would of course also have considered any similar unlisted tool). It also provides some general principles. The only general principle that could have quickly led to a consensus result relies on Wikinav data which doesn't exist due to the pre-existing redirect.
 * The discussion alone didn't result in a rough consensus itself, so I had to more closely examine the evidence presented. I would have examined the evidence either way, in case it contradicted a hypothetical consensus, but in this case it was indeed the only possible remaining path towards determining a consensus. WP:PT2 is not helpful here. WP:PT1 is the remaining well-accepted path toward determining a primary topic, and given the lack of agreement, there was not sufficient evidence for PT1 to push consensus in one direction or the other, thus there was no consensus.
 * In the absence of a compelling reason to ignore all rules, I closed the discussion as such. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you missed the significance of the red links for every "List of leaders of X" for every single U.S. state X. The second tool listed at WP:DPT is:
 * Wikipedia article traffic statistics (for the exact title of a page or a redirect) and redirect traffic statistics (for the total views of a page including traffic coming from its redirects).
 * The relevant article and redirect traffic statistics are 100% in favor of List of leaders of Georgia having the primary topic of the list of leaders of the country because there are no/zero/nada articles or redirects for "List of leaders of X" where X is a U.S. state. To say “I didn't see sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1” when ALL of the evidence supports one meaning in question and NONE of it supports the other (evidence of mere/expected ambiguity does not support the other) still makes no sense. I urge you to reverse your close accordingly. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 03:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your opinion and argument. I believe this is something that is very clear to you. I also see is that it's not clear in the same or a similar way to enough editors. I consider that different people's minds work differently, and the way they think will often be different from me and from one another.
 * I don't believe a consensus developed in the discussion, and given the comprehensiveness and duration of the discussion, I don't see a path for me to undo my close based on your request. My apologies. &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, those links to a few news articles that refer to Georgia governors as leaders are just evidence of ambiguity, which is undisputed (that’s a given for any PT by definition), not evidence of one or the other being, are not being, PT. В²C ☎ 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on 's point here I'm also baffled by your close. The evidence was strongly presented that the governors of the US state of Georgia are rarely denoted "leaders", and as such there is simply no ambiguity here, with a hatnote catering for the small possibility that someone meant governors of Georgia. Wikinav data is also emphatic on this. With a numeric majority supporting the move, and clear evidence as to why the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria were met, you can't really close it the way you did. If you had other opinions about it, you should have cast your own "oppose" vote. Please relist or reverse your decision. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I provided a more detailed summary of the closed discussion in this thread above, which you may find helpful. If you are looking to understand why editors who opposed the the proposal did not find the arguments or evidence convincing, I'm probably not the right person to discuss this with as I was and—outside of the close—remain uninvolved in this topic area. You might politely reach out to someone who articulated opposition after evidence was presented and ask what they would find convincing. If—or when—that evidence is available, you could consider starting a new discussion around the topic to present the evidence.
 * If I heed the guidance at I would be at odds with community expectations changing the existing closure myself. All the best. &mdash;siro&chi;o 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You found no consensus by either counting !votes or by weighing arguments.
 * If you did so by counting !votes you need to reverse your close.
 * If you did so by weighing arguments then that means you found equally strong (policy-basis-wise) arguments on both sides. I think you believe you did this, but you didn’t actually. I say this because when asked to articulate the strong arguments opposing the move all you have been able to come up with are arguments showing “Georgia” is ambiguous, which is not even in question. In other words, you believed you were weighing arguments but you were giving weight to oppose arguments that should not have been given any weight. In your 3 Oct comment above you ultimately fall back onto “I don’t believe a consensus developed in the discussion”, which is the case if you’re looking for agreement rather than properly weighing arguments. If the question was whether the moon was made of cheese and about half said they thought it was, and the other half cited scientific evidence to the contrary, would you say there was no consensus? Given that half are saying it’s cheese it’s natural to see no consensus. But if you’re weighing the arguments and dismiss the silly cheese arguments accordingly, then there is consensus. In this case all the arguments based on the undisputed ambiguity of Georgia are the silly cheese arguments. But rather than dismissing them, you seem to have given them equal weight. That’s the problem with this close. If you want to take this to MR we can, but you’d save the community a lot of time and effort by reverting or reversing your well meaning but misguided close. —В²C ☎ 21:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Please feel free to take this to MR, if you feel that is best. Given that this is ultimately a disagreement about whether a primary topic exists, I do think an approach more likely to settle the matter is to collect empirical evidence of reader expectations (possibly from the DAB that was set up in October, if nav data is available for it), and construct a proposal backed by such evidence. Given what was stated in the discussion, if such evidence is presented, I imagine a rough consensus could develop.
 * I want to reiterate that I respect your understanding of the situation, and appreciate the thought you've put into your argument. Given your specific concerns in the comment above, I also want to assure you that I read every comment, and treated each editor's opinion with an appropriate weight. In the close, I noted that there was a numerical advantage in favor of the "supports". Ultimately the policy around primary topics and the relevant evidence provided meant the discussion did not reach a consensus, despite the numerical advantage "support" had.
 * All the best &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from SukhaXLilnoor (17:12, 17 December 2023)
Hello How Do You Edit On Wikipedia? --SukhaXLilnoor (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @SukhaXLilnoor! Welcome. To start, if you'd like a guided introduction, you can check out Help:Introduction, or if you'd like to read a more in depth intro, check out Contributing to Wikipedia. I'll also leave a set of links on your talk page that you can use if you like. Let me know if you need any further guidance. &mdash;siro&chi;o 17:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for This Boy's Life: A Memoir
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia, Siroxo. You are a hero! 125.238.251.159 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words! &mdash;siro&chi;o 14:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Salman Ali786 (07:24, 19 December 2023)
i made an edit on the page but it got deleted .. why? --Salman Ali786 (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. It looks like the edits at Sadiq Public School were not backed by a reliable source. To understand a bit about the need for reliable sources, you can reed about Wikipedia's verifiability policy. And also note, when claims are made involving a living person, the requirements for reliable sources become even stronger. I hope this helps! &mdash;siro&chi;o 14:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from CaliCanuck (19:45, 31 December 2023)
No question currently. Thank you for being assigned to me as a mentor. Happy New Year to you! --CaliCanuck (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Daineresly on Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard (02:40, 3 January 2024)
I saw JC Dugaurd hours after her kidnapping in Antioch CA. At KMart about 1 1/2 miles from where they found her living. I called every police station there is from Antioch all the way to Tahoe telling them to please check Kmarts cameras I called back every day for over a week. No one returned my calls. No one I was told not to say anything after she was found. I am so sorry I can't stay quiet any more. The police did not listen --Daineresly (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Alixweiss on Contact us (21:18, 11 January 2024)
Hi there! I just submitted the page "food noise" and am looking for clarity on next steps as I don't think it's published. --Alixweiss (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Dan Dan the Milkshake Man (15:53, 17 January 2024)
Hello. How do editors find information on the topic of the page they are editing? Are there specific websites that should be used and/or avoided? Thank you. --Dan Dan the Milkshake Man (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Wheelchairsafari (12:20, 22 January 2024)
Ximuwu Safari Lodge: A Pioneer in Accessible Safari Experiences

Introduction: Hello, I’m Patrick Suverein, the founder of Ximuwu Safari Lodge, a unique destination among thousands of safari lodges. What sets our lodge apart is its foundational design, specifically created to accommodate wheelchair users. Known as WheelchairSafari.com, our lodge is a testament to accessibility in safari experiences, ensuring that every aspect, from the rooms to the main building, including restaurants and bars, is fully accessible.

Accessibility and Recognition: In recognition of our commitment to accessibility, the Tourist Grading Council awarded Ximuwu Lodge the highest level of accessibility in South Africa, a first in the country. Our facilities, including the game viewer and airport shuttle bus, have been customized by Braun Ability, featuring swivel seats and large loading ramps, catering to the needs of our guests.

Facilities for Comfort and Adventure: Ximuwu Lodge is equipped with comprehensive tools to ensure a comfortable stay. These include a pool lift, a bath lift, a mobile ramp, mechanical and fully electronic wheelchairs with height adjustment, bath chairs, and cooling vests for quadriplegic guests to manage body temperature. Our dedication to creating unforgettable holidays is evident in our efforts to provide thrilling helicopter adventures for wheelchair users, maintaining a 100% success rate in our first year.

Media Recognition and Future Plans: Our opening year garnered attention from leading magazines in the accessible travel industry. Notable coverage includes articles by Sophie Morgan in Conde Nast Traveler, as well as features in Skyways, Beautiful News, Trazee Travel, Signature Luxury Travel and Style, Africa.com, and Globetrender. Looking ahead, we are scheduled to appear in Cathay Pacific’s onboard magazine, further highlighting our unique offerings.

Question, is this an article worth having on wikipedia and how do we do this? --Wheelchairsafari (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 60, November – December 2023 
 * Three new partners
 * Google Scholar integration
 * How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:CBS Jazz All Stars
Hello, Siroxo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:CBS Jazz All Stars, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Harka (Maghreb)&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Vanessa Marquez&#32; on a "All RFCs" 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 20:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Davey Wreden has a new comment
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:1em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;"> I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Davey Wreden. Thanks! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Nycwriter2 (19:36, 13 February 2024)
Hello, my wife Susan Mosher's wikipedia page is completely out of date and inaccurate. We have no idea who contributed the original version but it's at least 10-15 years old. I just spent all morning updating the page to include her full bio, career, awards, etc, using what I believed to be reliable sources to reference dates or certain shows she performed in. I also made internal links to other wikipedia pages. Within hours it's been taken down and the old one is back. What did I do wrong? Is the IMDB, IBDB or Playbill.com not reliable sources for Theater information? Should I not use any citations at all to be safe? I'm totally confused and frustrated. The current entry is not accurate at all and she very much would like it updated. --Nycwriter2 (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Tone (linguistics), &#32; Talk:Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League  and &#32; Talk:Israel–Hamas war on "All RFCs" request for comments. 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, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:CBS Jazz All Stars


Hello, Siroxo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "CBS Jazz All Stars".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 08:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 61, January – February 2024 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
 * 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Niftski for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Niftski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Niftski until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. ltb d l (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi, Siroxo,

I was noticing that I hadn't seen you around on the project for several weeks. Your participation at AFD is very much missed. You were a thoughtful and conscientious contributor and I hope your time frees up and we'll be seeing you soon. Take care. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, Siroxo,
 * It was great to see your comment in a recent AFD discussion. I wasn't sure if you were going to return to contribute to the project. I hope it can hold your interest! Welcome back! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Emily Tesh
Hello, Siroxo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Emily Tesh, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)