User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 12

Modified comment
Apologies, I had to slightly modify a link that you added to Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11. It was blacklisted after you had added it, and was completely freaking out AnomieBOT. It looks like the bot has now completed the move or whatever it was trying to do. If you wanted to alter the link in a different way, please feel free to do so. You'll likely hit the spam filter if you try to revert it to a "live" link again, though. Kuru  (talk)  01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC in final stages of development
Hello SmokeyJoe. An RfC is in the final stages of development which you may be interested in. I am messaging you because you participated in talk page discussions in 2011 which led to the initial inclusion of wp:noconsensus. Any ideas or help you may wish to contribute before the RfC goes live will be appreciated. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Process question: MR possible?
In the following abstract situation: Can MR be used to uphold the RM close?This concerns the situation that is currently discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I was worried that my request at MR would be declined, as I would not have been challenging a close. So in this instance I opted for ANI, but maybe MR could have been more useful? I saw that you are active at Move review and are probably able to answer this. Thanks in advance. twsabin 00:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) RM is closed and the article is moved
 * 2) A dissatisfied editor undoes the move against the RM close,
 * For example... can I start a Move review on the move undoer's behalf, using neutral wording and/or quoting them, with the intended goal of the move actually being endorsed? Would that be seen as misuse of the venue, or even abuse of process? I guess it could be seen as a waste of time, but ANI seems like an even bigger waste of time now, and actually quite counterproductive... twsabin 00:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe and I go back a ways and his talk page has been on my watchlist for a while. Specific to the Babbitt question, as you've likely gathered please hold off on opening anything else until the ANI resolves per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I'm curious to hear his thoughts on this, though, since this is a weird one. Maybe asking for advice/attention at WT:MR instead of starting an actual move review? VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did not intend to start anything until ANI resolves. WT:MR seems like a good idea, thanks (I won't start that very soon either). twsabin 01:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A dissatisfied editor undoes the move against the RM close
 * Abstract question. Ok. I have not seen anything so far.
 * Either, the move was out of order in some obvious way, and I expect an excellent edit summary or a link to a talk page explanation, or, the dissatisfied editor is out of order and should be talking instead. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll continue in the abstract realm: The edit summary contains a potentially relevant objection of a procedural sort, that may or may not correspond to reality. No talk page, no amending the close. twsabin 02:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It definitely should be on a talk page and not generating page move log events. I discourage rushing to MRV, try first to resolve on a talk page, but on committed opposition, go to MRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! twsabin 04:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Vladislav Sviblov
Could you see a draft of this article? Валерий Пасько (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Perlmutter
Hello User:SmokeyJoe. Thank you so much for you admin work! I am new to Wikipedia, and created my first article Brett Perlmutter. It was nominated by for deletion by a user called user:SadHaas, who seemed a wp:SPA and has since deactivated his/her account. Sadly, I think this was because SadHaas is the same user as Ksoze1 who is pushing adamantly for the deletion of the article. In fact, the last edit of SadHaas (which we can no longer see because the account has been deleted) was the same day that Ksoze1 reactivate his/her account since it was dormant since 2017 [] in order to keep editing the AfD. I am not an expert at these forensics, but this seems evident that they are the same person. Now the nominator of the AfD no longer exists on Wikipedia!

Furthermore, Ksoze1 revealed a certain bias against the subject of the article on the talk page of ExtraordinaryWrit []; it seems to take the form of a grudge because they went to the same high school as the subject, according to what Ksoze1 wrote. Not sure how that plays into the concept of neutrality (again, I am new here!)

Finally, a note on me: I made the mistake of voting multiple time on the AfD, and I am very sorry; it was truly because I am new to Wikipedia and did not know the rules! I learned my lesson (the hard way!) I could not leave this comment on the AfD page because I am temporarily banned (it expires tomorrow). Lobsteroll (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi User: SmokeyJoe: It looks like this article was deleted by the closer User:Black Kite. [] It seems they have overlooked that the AfD was created by a SPA that no longer exists. User: Black Kite allows other admins to reverse this decision, per their talk page. Is this something you could look into Lobsteroll (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I support User:Black Kite's close. If you want to try to recover the article, talk to him.  Pay close attention to Extraordinary Writ's !vote of  03:28, 21 March 2022. I suggest that you get more experience improving existing content before committing to work on something that has already been deleted.  Rescuing a flawed and deleted article is hard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok thanksLobsteroll (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for University of Windsor Students' Alliance
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;University of Windsor Students' Alliance&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

seeking clarification
Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your thoughtful participation at the move review. I don't want to clog the discussion there and further make it about me, but I wanted to respond to your characterization of me, which I feel is unfair: Has issues communicating, tends to alienate the audience, yes. Aside from the admittedly contentious opening question of the move request, which I contextualized, was there something else I did to warrant this characterization? إيان (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The brevity and emotion of the nomination doomed it. The previous RM, Talk:Berbers/Archive 7, included reasoned opposition. A fresh RM nomination should summarise the reason for failure of the prior RM, and preemptively answer the same objections coming again.
 * Nomination super brief and emotional invites knee jerk opposition, exactly as happened.
 * For better or worse (worse, in my opinion), RM responders aren’t expected to have any interest in the topic, and it is up to the nominator to put topic content into the discussion.
 * The prior RM was very long. I advise trying to be concise and detailed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s sound advice. I’ll wait and see how the move review plays out and go from there. إيان (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC) إيان (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan ethno-lingustic map page
Hello, There is a map made by CIA about afghanistan ethno-lingustic topic, wich is Completely wrong and it's Clear that it's because of political strategies. Why???? For example according to wikipedia/balkh province, the major inhabitants of balkh are tajiks, but according to cia the uzbeks are the major one!!!!!! So my map wich has been deleted by some users was english version of Al-Jazeera report about afghanistan. According to wikipedia reliable sources page, al-Jazeera is an independent organization, while cia has political agenda. You can visit the page, i want to know why my map wich is more accurate and doesn't have any political agenda is the one which deleted while cia provincal ethnic distribution is wrong according to wikipedia itself???? 5644Khorasani (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

5 June
Hi Sir/ma, I’m contacting you in regards of Snazzy the Optimist it was nominated 7 days ago for deletion and according to the nominator a consensus must be reached to decide if the article would remain or be deleted and consensus for keep has reached but the discussion is yet to be closed and it’s 7 days now. LynRuch (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've emailed you
As per the section header. —Cryptic 04:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Cryptic, thanks. I think I understand the background details, and think this comes down to whether revision deletion is ok to use to fight trolls. I’d like to stick with endorsing as within discretion, hoping that this implies it’s not a precedent for what should be usually done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Shortened my comment after you replied
Hi, I shortened a comment of mine after you replied, I hope you don’t mind. Your reply didn’t refer to the stuff I deleted, but if you want I can restore it with strikethrough.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan as the Austronesian Homeland
Hi SmokeyJoe, I thought of your comment when I saw this story this morning and thought that you might appreciate it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The userbox thing
I'm a bit concerned about where all this righteous anger anti-redneck stuff is heading, and not for any disagreement with the general anti-reb sentiment. I agree with you we need to understand the bright lines better. Blank, not delete, I agree. I'm more concerned about the public perception Wikipedia might be seen as taking sides on social issues. Would you care to discuss? BusterD (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am good to discuss this. I can see both sides, and don’t want to drive the issue, but for the MfD point of view, I think at least an essay drawing bright lines would be good.
 * I think bright lines are good to discourage random people doing their own policing of others’ userspace. Wikipedians policing other Wikipedians is not quite ideal collegiality.  Userspace is meant to have broad leeway.
 * On political userboxes, there’s NOTADVOCACY versus declarations of one’s own POV. For the most offensive stuff, it’s probably better that good faith Wikipedians declare their POV than hide it.  Then there are trolls.  We have known for decades that trolls should not be fed.  This means quietly blank, not initiate a formal MfD process.  Where it’s egregious, either G10 or U5 will apply, and if not it doesn’t need deleting.
 * I am hesitant to get into drafting lines of acceptability. NAZIS, not.  Apparently, Neo-Confederates are as good as Nazis to some.  I’ve met some who make reasonable short statements in defence of the confederacy secession, but it blends quickly into historic academia.  Where does an interest in refining a balance of opinion on history turn into outrageous politics?  Similarly, in recent years, the arguments over pro- and anti- Trumpism were non-collegiate, bordering on Wikipedians taking an anti-Trump editorial line on acceptable editor opinion, and this is not what Wikipedia should be doing.


 * Wikipedia, including Wikipedians in userspace, including Wikipedians enforcing standards, should not be taking sides on social issues. I think a sufficient remedy for perceived extremes of expressed opinion in userspace is the long-standing _NOINDEXING_ of userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To my mind the central issue is not about the content, but about the attribution. If an active user posts pro-nazi or pro-rebel stuff on their page, we ask the user to self moderate. If an inactive user has previous posted crap, we take the entire page to MfD? Seems a disproportionate remedy to me. And we now have a micro-cabal doing this unhealthy work. BusterD (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s right. This happens at MfD.  That’s why watching MfD is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This activity has bothered me deeply for some days, and it occurred to me that these deletions themselves represent a sort of digital historical negationism via Damnatio memoriae and iconoclasm. The content of the "icon" is apparently so offensive some action is required, and so some are going to remove or damage the content, without recognizing the broader consequences to Wikipedia page history. BusterD (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

After a single inexcusable and indefensible public attack against an entire group of us during a highly-viewed and otherwise unopposed formal process, we now have another group of human "unredeemable" not allowed to sysop or even edit Wikipedia. There's something very torchy and pitchforky going on here, and while I agree on the merits each about NONAZIS, NORACISTS and NOTRANSPHOBICS, we have to accept wikipedians now have an actual list of entire classes of persons who defacto are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. Eventually they'll get to NOIDIOTS, and then I'll be out too. As I intended in the op, I can't like where this is going. Righteousness always makes this stuff worse. BusterD (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Queen Camilla
Thank you for your kind message, I think we could update this article to th proposed as we seem to have more positive then negative, the results of all the monarchs on here whether Consort or not are not referred to that way, and whilst some prefer to tradition, we have got to expect that things change, why have a term like "consort", the ruling monarch is clearly established so one is a King or Queen anyway if they are married to a Monarch, Kind REGARDS, AND thank s Agin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.0.11 (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/122.106.0.11, I understand that people want to do this, but Wikipedia must follow sources, not correct the record, or introduce the Voice of Wikipedia to make things look more positive.
 * Camilla may forever be styled “Queen Consort”, or not. Until the change happens, it hasn’t happened, and Wikipedia must not get ahead of itself.  Read things such as
 * RIGHTGREATWRONGS
 * WP:SYNTH
 * WP:VOICE
 * Wikipedia maintaining a neutral point of view is fundament principle WP:5P. Trying to be positive is contrary to that.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Some Wandom Noob/Silly animations
User:Some Wandom Noob/Silly animations, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Wandom Noob/Silly animations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Some Wandom Noob/Silly animations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That quasi-attack page at MfD
I'm grateful for your comments at the MfD. Indeed the situation had become complex, though that was not of my choosing. The editor in question has chosen to acquire indef blocks both here and on Commons, each for personal attacks. This seems to me to be a shame. I say this because they have boundless enthusiasm. Even so, I have doubts that they could be educated into our ways to become a valuable editor. Much of their enthusiasm was heading to WP:BATTLEGROUND

Paradoxically I am sure we have each noticed each other as being often of opposing views at MfD, usually with your view prevailing. What I like most about that is collegial disagreement with no offence taken nor given. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Timtrent.
 * I think I know you best from AfC circles. Possibly NPP. Although I don’t know you well, what I have seen I highly respect, and I wish I could be motivated more to do more, like you, at AfC, as it is important.
 * I have a long habit of watching MfD, and participate is a lot of discussions there, and have seen you there sometimes, but no, I did not realise we have often presented opposing views. Often, I present a view unbiased by others opinions already expressed, and then come back to read what they wrote second, and then if unsure I may not actually get around to responding to an apparent difference.  I hope I don’t often express a view at odds with yours on something important.  Or think something is unimportant when you think it is important.
 * If you ever find me being unhelpful, please let me know and I will try to be more helpful.
 * — SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MfD is an odd venue. I first came there thinking it was a sort of mini-AfD, but with a different reach. It dawned on me, gradually, that even the poorest Draft is unlikely to belong there, and that there have to be very special circumstances to make it appropriate. Thus I understand, and this is through your work there, how to use the venue better.
 * AFC is my usual place to play. Thank you for your comments. I will try to continue to deserve your respect. I doubt we disagree on important things. If we happen to do so, then so be it. Disagreement is healthy when conducted well. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MfD is indeed an odd venue. It’s a place where important discussions involving community leaders may happen.  More usually, it attracts busywork brought by enthusiastic new editors seeking projectspace experience.  It’s also used to surreptitiously attack other editors.  They pick a userspace page some editor has made, and publicly declare it so bad it needs to be deleted. The nominator’s include sockpuppets and self-justifying bullies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Good grief!" 👀😇😈 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Replying from DRV
"not easily added" may indeed be correct--I didn't see the article before it was deleted, so I was forced to argue from what was said about the article in the AfD and DRV, rather than anything I could directly see myself. I still suspect it would not have been too heavy a lift to merge some bit of it, but again--my conjecture. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Jclemens,
 * I quite enjoy difficult DVR cases with you involved, as we often agree on the bottom line but often with very different routes getting there. Here, I think it is the same, except for me the article, Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, needs to spend time deleted, acknowledging that the community found it unsuitable.
 * Looking now at the draftified article, Draft:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, I lean towards judging that it passes the WP:GNG, however, the GNG is merely a predictor of whether the article will survive AfD. The article was deleted because it is a celebration of the banal around a popular shop.  Almost everything in it is overdone. At AfD, I would argue to WP:STUBify it.
 * Advice, largely for User:Another Believer, is to strip back the content associated references that are weaker quality references. WP:THREE is good extreme advice on doing this.
 * Jclemens, I still disagree that the topic could or should be merged or redirected to Pike Place Market. Pike Market Place would not be improved by adding promotional blurb on every tenant business currently operating. And, without coverage of Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, a redirect is not appropriate, which rules out WP:ATD-R. Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments of WP:ATD being a very strong reason to keep, and in fact have argued a few times that an AfD is defective if an obvious merge or redirect target is not explicitly refuted by the nominator in their deletion rationale, mandated by the WP:BEFORE instruction.
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to where it ended up; I had not taken the time for that before. I agree that it would be a shame to shred such an article down into a brief mention in Pike Place Market, and that redirecting without a mention at the target is also an unsupportable outcome.  In fact, looking at the improvements made during the AfD, I am even more convinced that deleting the content was wrong. I think this is a sad commentary, that we can't seem to draft reasonable anti-spamming guidelines into NORG without folks thinking that that means places like this need to go, too. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Drafts
Hi Joe. (I'm pinging  on this too because I know he takes an interest in these things). As you both know, many years ago I wrote most of what is now the tutorial at WP:NPP. Discussion regularly comes and goes among the NPP team about drafts and they are possibly misinformed and maybe making involuntary mistakes. I know that for example you added a clause to the essay at WP:Drafts on double draftifying following a short thread on the talk page, but can you point me to the site-wide RfC about it? I can then update the tutorial with a link. Thanks, and a Happy New Year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kudpung I cannot recall an RfC, but I believe WP:DRAFTIFY has the relevant details. Forgive the brevity, I am in a rush this morning 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks . What you probably meant was WP:DRAFTOBJECT, another section on the same essay, but I'm specifically looking for the site-wide RfC where it was decided and I can't locate a newsletter where the 750 reviewers were notified of a policy. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung That is the section. Sorry I made you dig deep for it. I only discovered it in passing during my AFC work by genuinely not knowing about it and being corrected. I think it is a useful thing since it stops move warring. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks again . I agree it might help to prevent move warring but anythimg like that is a rare occurence. As you said, not any NPPers know about it and I'm still looking for the actual site-wide RfC that established it as a policy. Joe included it in the essay. Can you or SmokeyJoe help? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung It is less rare than you may think, or it may be that I encounter it far too often! I'm afraid I never knew until I was corrected and aimed at DRAFTOBJECT. may be a useful editor in this regard, though?  Sorry to seem to hijack your talk page, Joe. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Following this discussion in 2017, and a brief cross-post to here, Joe added the text in Special:Diff/809760326 (though clearly it has been edited and updated a bit since then). Primefac (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Kudpung, there was no RfC. Was one required?
 * User:Primefac, thanks for find that. Those links were not easily found by me.  I am quite surprised at how old they are.
 * On WP:DRAFTOBJECT, in a discussion, possibly on a village pump, involving User:WhatamIdoing, she pointed out that DRAFTOBJECT did not say what I read it as saying. I edited DRAFTOBJECT to make the single move explicit.  I consider it to be logically following Wikipedia policy and practice, that draftspace and AfC is optional.  And if there is any disagreement over the right of an article to be in mainspace, the appropriate forum is AfD.
 * I later edited again when someone pointed out inconsistency with WP:COI. I had not remembered that COI is a reason for a mandate for a COI editor to only create COI articles via AfC. Thus, of course, a COI may not appeal to DRAFTOBJECT.
 * Others have edited WP:DRAFTS. To my slight surprise, it remains much intact.  I wrote it conservatively, taking others’ statements where ever possible, and structured it logically with referenceable dot points which would readily enable a discussion or an RfC on any parts that attracted contention.
 * There was a very serious RfC on how old is “old”, with respect to not allowing unilateral draftifications of old articles. The answer was six months. No one ever challenged the underlying structure.
 * This was all mostly motivated by perceptions (before 2017) that G13 opened the door to nefarious backdoor deletions. Subsequently, I looked and found no evidence whatsoever of nefarious deletion wars.  I think the inclusionism-deletionism battles of the first several years of Wikipedia don’t occur anymore.  I checked some of the most memorable names, and they are all blocked. Interesting. I think Wikipedia matured. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The DRAFTOBJECT harder wording was added here with reference to this, at WT:AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The following, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 75, began at Village pump (policy) before being moved to WT:AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much and Joe for helping to clear this up. So there was indeed no specific site-wide RfC on whether a draft can be redraftfied a second - or even multiple - times, and effectively there is no policy.. That's what I wanted to know. Joe, you included that in good faith as I probably would have done too, but Drafts is an essay, it is definitely not a policy, and after reading all the links you guys have provided it's not even a synthesis of any policies. Don't get me wrong - I'm not about to change it, I firmly believe the accurate guideline would be for a reviewer at DRAFTOBJECT to calmly enter into dialogue with the offending creator and explain what they could do towards improving their draft.

This is what we have done now by creating a new improved 'Move to draft' script to replace the one that is not maintained, and to couple it with a brand new, attractive explanation page. Some unsuspecting, otherwise highly qualified NPPers have risked being heavily scolded and attacked for presumed 'abuse of policy' for just doing what they genuinely think is the right thing. That does not foster good collaboration and it's one of the reasons why fewer and fewer good editors are prepared to review pages and risk working in the minefield NPP has become. So thanks again, and I'll now be able to put this issue to bed for the NPP community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kudpung As you put it to bed for NPP, please don't forget that AFC reviewers can be the first to see an AFC draft moved to mainspace. They appear in Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space and prompt many of us to look and to make a determination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, . Thank you all for you're help digging for those diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "there was indeed no specific site-wide RfC" leads to "effectively there is no policy", though it's something I'd expect a decent wikilawyer to claim at ANI, if he were in hot water over deliberately and repeatedly flouting it after being asked to stop it. Having a specific site-wide RfC is not a requirement, though it often seems like it would be less work to host the RfC than to get past a wikilawyer.
 * I've been tempted to start an RfC this last week over a single editor, who keeps setting articles' WP:1.0 team ratings to Top-importance for all WikiProjects. I can't imagine why he thought that improving the article about Francis Glisson should be as important to WPMED as improving the article for Heart disease, but at this point, it might be easier to have an RFC than to convince him to knock it off.  ANI would be more appropriate, but I'd expect him to say that there was never an overwhelmingly positive, community-initiated, CENT-listed RfC telling him to knock it off, so how could he possibly be expected to know that it was disruptive to screw around with the ratings of any article that caught his eye? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point of this thread, . I came here not to start a discourse on 'policy vs no policy' but to ask a specific question and it's been answered. However since you mentioned it: "there was indeed no specific site-wide RfC" leads to "effectively there is no policy", I will will clear that up for you by making an analogy using NPP, a system you disapprove of, as an example: WP:NPP is a tutorial, one that I largely wrote in 2016 when I created the New Page Reviewer right. It's had 168,493 views since then which largely reflects the number of times reviewers use it - let's be clear, NPP if done correctly is a complex process. However, it's a tutorial; it's neither a policy nor a guideline, was never intended to be and anyone is welcome to change it. If their changes are inappropriate, they will be reverted. However, some people regard it as policy and almost cite it as such and occasionally I remind them it isn't and there is flexibility in the way intelligent reviewers can and do interpret it.
 * OTOH there is a new, developing trend on Wikipedia where people are demanding site-wide RfC on some of the most banal little nuts and bolts. Frankly it's ridiculous. However, when users are being sanctioned or their good work being mocked or torpedoed for not appearing to rigidly adhere to something which is not a policy, then it's time to make it a policy. For example WP:NPR is a policy and woe betide anyone who changes it without a significant RfC - which means more than just 8 users coming to a vague agreement on an obscure talk page of an essay. Hence, it follows therefore that as that draftspace and AfC is (sic) optional their use cannot be dictated by a policy that does not govern them, and New Page Reviewers cannot be sanctioned or threatened for doing the right thing by invoking IAR (on a policy that does not exist), i.e. a logical fallacy. If you want to establish new policies or change existing ones, you know what to do. I hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why you believe I don't support NPP. I don't support sloppy reviews by NPPers (does anyone?), and I don't support having the standards for what's acceptable applied unevenly so that "this" topic area gets accepted with two sentences and one source, but "that" topic area must be a Start-class article with eight refs before it can be accepted, but I believe we agree on those points.  Where we might disagree is that I think NPP should not have to shoulder the weight of the world by themselves.  IMO they should not be asked to add WikiProject tags, or to engage in stub sorting, or even to care about non-CSD-worthy notability, beyond possibly dropping Notability at the top of the page.  They should get to do their main job without being asked to do everyone else's job, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't 'imagine' you don't support NPP. If I had more time I would dig out the diffs from 11 or 12 years ago which and  remember as if it were yesterday and where we attempted as courteously as possible to explain NPP and convince you of its purpose.  I do not disagree for a moment that NPP should ...shoulder the weight of the world by themselves and not only am I adamant that the dedicated reviewers of this thankless job should not be constantly taken to task for every minor complaint about their handling of rare edge cases, but I am extremely comforted by your belief that They should get to do their main job without being asked to do everyone else's job. That's precisely what they do and why for example BEFORE is not strictly part of their remit, and that what happens after they have moved a new article to draft  space is not their concern either. A draft then becomes the domain of the AfC reviewers where in contrast to NPP the work done there is not a binary process. New Page Reviewers are given their permission after thorough scrutiny by an admin and there are no enthusiastic  deletionists or die hard inclusionists among them. They know their policies well and go about their job dispassionately and objectively, acting as best they can where no guidelines other than made up 'rules' exist. It's the best we have, and I hope you will continue as you have just now to defend their work until some better system can be invented. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I kind of wish that you would dig those diffs out, because I've long wondered whether you have confused me with someone else. For example, back in the day, not only was I one of the very first people to support Blade's original 2011 proposal for ACTRIAL, I was one of the few editors designing the trial for ACTRIAL, and yet it has seemed to me that you have, in more recent years, somehow believed that I was irrevocably opposed to ACTRIAL happening.  I have found a (very) few discussions about NPP in the approximate time range, but so far, the only relevant comment seems to be me saying "I agree with Scottywong", which does not match your recollection.
 * To save you some time, here's a complete list of every page that all three of us edited 10 to 13 years ago. There aren't that many, so you might be able to find what you were thinking of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Salting
I've been slowly whittling away at the list of fully-salted pages that are over 10 years old (which was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35k pages when I started), mainly those that are excessively long, detailed, or BLP violations (the latter mainly to drop them off of the Special pages). I've been mulling over the idea of starting an RFC over whether we should ever have indefinite salts of pages, since the vast majority of these 10+ year old salts are from titles that either are not worth protecting any more (repeated article creation, for example) or no longer necessary (LTA-related stuff). What do you think? Primefac (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 35k? Wow.
 * It could get awkward. There might be some pages that have a reason for very long term SALT, and an open discussion that draws attention to them might be quite counterproductive.
 * My thought was that moving forwards, it might be better to have SALTing default to six months, or two years, or something, and for it to not be so easy to SALT indefinitely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My thinking was more along your second thought; not necessarily "should these pages still be salted" but more to come at it from an "is there a reason for indefinite salting" perspective. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you have any interest in helping Wikipedia create a new user splash page?
I've been asked to shepherd this minor task. Kudpung is stepping back. I need some folks I already know. There has been some discussion on the subject; there's an online meeting this week at 01:00 20 January. You and I seem to get along while still seeing things differently. Your participation could be helpful, even if just looking over my shoulder. BusterD (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi User:BusterD. I don’t know much about splash pages, but I like to try to consider various perspectives on things.  I’d be happy to have a look and try to give constructive comments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Link to meeting info. BusterD (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I've called the question.
At the risk of seeming to canvass, I'm asking you to comment on this discussion. I just think you can develop the point better than I did. If you choose to do so. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a moot point by now, but as long as the discussion is not outcome-oriented (such as an AFD), it's not considered canvassing to alert another editor to its existence. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ping at User talk:Athaenara
Frankly, I've just lost a great deal of respect for you following that. Athaenara was proudly and unapologetically engaging in bigotry against one of the most vulnerable groups of people in society. She continued to do so after her tools were removed and she was blocked. The safety and comfort of the trans community in general is far more important to me than the contributions of a single editor who refuses to so much as consider the harm she has caused, let alone apologize for it. I was not overreacting and I will not be undoing my action. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Premeditated Chaos, I misread the date stamps and thought your action was yesterday, after she had voluntarily stopped soapboxing four months ago. My apologies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there was nothing voluntary about it. I appreciate the apology and the struck comment. Cheers, Joe. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Question from CamCemron (23:55, 26 May 2023)
I need help creating a page. I want to creat the new page for the 18th season of the TV show America’s Got Talent. Can you help --CamCemron (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi User:CamCemron, tell me more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:2026 Israeli legislative election
Your decline points to Draft talk:2026 Israeli legislative election which is a redirect with no discussion in its history. Do you remember anything about your reason for declining? ~Kvng (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Kvng. No sorry, I do not remember this.  I do sometimes post a comment on the talk and point to it, but I do not see any posting of a comment in my edit history.  Perhaps it was a failed save.  Perhaps I was careless.  Right now, I don’t quickly form an opinion on the page as it stood.  I can’t guess what my comment was to be.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Ajayraj890 (04:27, 10 June 2023)
I have created a page in my sanbox. How can I publish it? --Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Ajayraj890, it looks good. There should be a “Move” tab at the top. Would you like my help to do it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Of cource. It is thankful Ajayraj890 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Ajayraj890 (03:58, 11 June 2023)
Sir, two of my Pages were deleted. The person who deleted the pages doesn't give any reason. It just says "Not ready for the article space". Could you please check the mistake please. Page 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_Orchha Page 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satnami_Rebellion --Ajayraj890 (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Ajayraj890,
 * I have asked the administrator User:Deb about it, here.
 * On your part, it would be helpful if you gave a brief introduction to yourself on your Userpage. It is currently a redlink, which is often taken as a sign of an extremely new editor.
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh. Now i understand that. I will definitely make it. Ajayraj890 (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I was being kind by describing the above as "inexperienced" in the edit summary. The fact is that none of his/her articles have achieved the basic level of English that would have allowed them to pass a proper review; therefore s/he is circumventing the process by moving them from his/her sandbox when they are far from fit for use. I see s/he has now created a non-existent user called "Satnami Rebellion" to try to get around the standards. The way you've begun your comment on my page ("you appear to be enforcing a personal rule...") is little short of a personal attack, and if you had looked at the articles, you would have found it easy to see why they needed to go to draft.Deb (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Definition of "Murder"
Hey Smokey Joe. I'd like to encourage you to take a moment and genuinely and thoughtfully consider your position that the plain word "murder" can never be used to describe an act that is found in a court of law to be second-degree murder.

A few points here. First that language is descriptive, not prescriptive. The way that people in society at large use words define their meaning. As I've shown on the other talk page, multiple reliable sources in American English use the word plain word "murder" to describe the Murder of George Floyd, which was found in a court of law to be second-degree murder. This is a common usage that is easily understood by both the writers and the readers. It's not a mistake that slipped past the editors.

Second, I'd like to point to your quote: "I won’t agree with you on redefining the meaning of murder, which requires intent." You link to wikt:murder, and claim that "murder" requires intent. However, wikt:murder actually states explicitly that "murder" does not require intent. In fact, the only place where it mentions intent is by explicitly stating that the plain word "murder" can be appropriately used to describe a felony murder regardless of intent. In no place does murder state that intent is a definitional part of the word "murder."

It is a material fact that people in the United States — including the writers and editors of reliable major news outlets — use the word plain word "murder" to describe all sorts of murders, including felony murders and second-degree murders. It is also a material fact that murder supports this broad definition of the word murder, and does not stringently require intent anywhere in any of its definitions. It is also a material fact that major American dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage Dictionary support a definition of "murder" that does not include intent.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the word "murder" cannot ever be used to describe... well an unintentional murder... but please just look at the material reality. The word "murder" can and has been used to describe unintentional murders, and major dictionaries don't contradict this usage. That usage is real, and it is valid.

Frankly, I find your insistence on jumping into discussions around deaths solely to assert that other editors' common usage of the word "murder" is unequivocally invalid is very disruptive. It muddies the waters around an already extremely heated and complex topic. Combefere ★  Talk  06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Combefere.
 * the plain word "murder" can never be used to describe an act that is found in a court of law to be second-degree murder
 * That is not what I said and it not not what I ever believe. My position is that Wikipedia should not label something as a murder if no secondary source, with debating room over quality of the secondary source, has ever labelled it so.  Wikipedia must not be the first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was challenging proponents of the use of “murder” in the title to demonstrate that a source has done this before. I checked the reference list, and the references don’t / didn’t. I’ve checked before, but it’s been a while and I am pleased to see that you responded with three very good newer sources. This is NOT an issue over rules of meanings of word, merely where Wikipedia is following its sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Common law murder, or the normal meaning of the word, required intent. The wiktionary link uses a synonym, deliberate, clearly.  Deliberation.  This is in contrast to felony murder, or third degree murder, which relies on a statutory definition of particular jurisdictions.  I think that third degree murder, a relatively rare term, is rarely matched to the word murder, and that second degree murder falls on both sides.  It’s the falling on both sides that is particularly challenging, because Wikipedians should not be making editorial judgement on whether to be the first source to label murder, and separately, Wikipedians should not go to the primary sources to make these decisions.  At Wikt:murder, I see that you have jumped to the subpoint spreading to law, in some jurisdictions, which is clearly not the usual simple English meaning. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your argument that Wikipedia articles should not use the plain word "murder" until other sources use it in that manner is (while a position I disagree with) reasonable and understandable. In the future, I encourage you to make this position the basis of your discussion and arguments, and to abandon the discourse around the definition of the word "murder."
 * Comments like this:
 * "Technically, Chauvin was not convicted of murder, but of second degree murder. These are not the same thing. The conviction is technically defined, and is different to the standard meaning of wikt:murder. Floyd was killed, and Chauvin was convicted of second degree murder for the killing. This is plain and simple English. Wikipedia should be written in English."
 * or this
 * "Not murder. Second degree murder. Unintentional second degree murder. It’s quite technical, and variable by jurisdiction. Second degree murder does not match the dictionary definition, the dictionary definition matches first degree murder."
 * are not productive, and do not help to make your point. Clearly, the writers and editors of major news outlets believe that the conviction of unintentional second-degree murder fits within the "standard meaning of wikt:murder." As do many editors — most, I would argue.
 * You and I have run around this circle many times before, as I'm sure you remember. Back in 2021, you also stated that you never meant to imply that the word "murder" could not be used to describe second-degree murder. In that case, I just encourage you to be more careful with your words. Both in that conversation, and in the one today, you've made statements that imply or even explicitly assert that editors are using English incorrectly when they use the word "murder" to describe a second-degree murder.
 * By all means, keep arguing that WP should not use the plain word "murder" until RSs do. But if you really don't believe that the plain word "murder" can never be used to describe an act that is found in a court of law to be second-degree murder, then please stop telling editors that they're wrong or mocking them when they use it this way. Combefere  ★  Talk  08:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Combefere, thanks for your patience, and I’m sorry, but I did not remember you. I take your point on careful choosing of words. You seem now to be understanding me despite poor word choices, or sentence construction. This was most certainly not intended as mocking, it was meant to point out the subtle difference.
 * I am really annoyed by that flowchart at WP:DEATHS. The reason for the RfC was to change “shooting” to “killing” if the shooting killed.  Seeing the strong support, someone got carried away and went too far, producing a flowchart that advocates “murder” even if no secondary sources has used that term, in that way.
 * WP should not use the plain word "murder" until RSs do
 * True, but not sufficient. RSs are not sufficient, to label something, in a title, the RSs should be more that mere RSs, they should be reliable secondary sources.  A court document, a primary source, is not what Wikipedians should be using to make editorial judgements.
 * The Killing/Murder of George Floyd is a pretty extreme case of a killing that wasn’t called “murder”, for a long time, anyway. And to my surprise.  It’s a long way from killing someone by car accident while speeding.  The Murder of Justine Damond, while titled “murder”, was a more blatant mistake, third-degree murder not even being a thing in most places, and the event being more plausibly an accident.
 * On the other side, when reliable secondary sources do call something a murder, but there is no legal conviction, eg because the culprit escaped detection, it should still be able to be titled a murder. The flowchart overstates the importance of a conviction, understates the importance of COMMONNAME, and seems oblivious to WP:SYNTH, including sleuthing from primary sources, reliable or not, such as court documents. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Ajayraj890 (01:58, 26 June 2023)
Sir, I have requested an article for review. Could you please check if it is ready for a submission? I am just curious the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Siege_of_Tovala --Ajayraj890 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Ajayraj890 (15:46, 30 June 2023)
Sir, could you please check whether my article 'Draft:Chanda Sahib conquest of Travancore' is ready for review submission? --Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!
Hello , The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by using  at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from LILI ROY 1987 (18:05, 4 July 2023)
How can I create a Wikipedia page? --LILI ROY 1987 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from LILI ROY 1987 (10:17, 5 July 2023)
How can I share image from flickr to Wikimedia Commons? --LILI ROY 1987 (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Champope (03:45, 17 July 2023)
Hello, what am i allowed to do on my sandbox page? --Champope (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Champope, nearly anything, but not stuff unrelated to Wikipedia or editing practice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So does that mean i can put senseless jokes? Champope (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from YPMoldova (23:40, 4 August 2023)
Hello Smokey Joe. Please assist me figuring out how best to post an article about a producer / actor/ voice actor? I have links and references for all his work and contributions. --YPMoldova (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * User:YPMoldova, can first improve some existing content, on a different page where this producer / actor/ voice actor would be worth a mention? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Deletion review for Rarri Dream == An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rarri Dream. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JoshKaine (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC) ==

Rarri Dream page for undeletion

Question from Theohaganlol (18:18, 17 September 2023)
how do i create articles? --Theohaganlol (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for page review and creation
@SmokeyJoe I trust you're doing great. I kindly request your help to review and approve this page. Warm regards, mate.

Draft:Qing Madi (Music Artist) and Draft:Maria Chike Benjamin (1) (Media Personality)

George Nyiam (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * One request to one user is sufficient; I'll take this one at User talk:ToBeFree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Solomonkad (19:36, 19 September 2023)
Hello👋 How can I add a notable person name and history on the Wikipedia? --Solomonkad (talk) 19:36, 19 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)

Question from Ajayraj890 (17:29, 24 September 2023)
Hi sir. I've made the article Draft:Ghaznavid campaigns in India. I made a lot of mistakes earlier and I understand that. I've spent a lot of time on this article. Could you please check if I made any mistakes there? Sorry if it wastes your time. Thank you! --Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Kinplusfuture (00:47, 29 September 2023)
Hello, I am interested in the future plans of Mr. Kinzinger --Kinplusfuture (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

NO WAY
there's too much pigeons in this world, and I hate pigeons acctually much... 212.117.19.34 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"🔞" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%F0%9F%94%9E&redirect=no 🔞] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Djstatusent (18:33, 28 October 2023)
17 years of experience is quite the milestone! Let's collaborate!! I just recovered this account its about 8 y/o and have so much to contribute and can be helpful to accuracy for its knowledge base. Where can we begin? --Djstatusent (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Dj. Let’s talk on your user_talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Mention in a Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy discussion
Hi SmokeyJoe. This is a courtesy note that a comment you made in 2022 was mentioned here. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually flipped back and forth a couple times deciding whether to actively ping you to it or not. —Cryptic 07:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello SmokeyJoe:

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)

Question from Kingfaisal7 (11:26, 7 November 2023)
Hi mentor i hope you are very well, i want to create a wikipedia page for one of bosses, seeing how important that page will be for him being a government official. I need your help in how to do that.. Thank you --Kingfaisal7 (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from LOUART23! on Talk:Steven Bartlett (businessman) (00:54, 10 November 2023)
Hello I'm an artist I am  a painter ,designer, fine art and textile patterns designer I have huge portfolio but am struggling with getting my art out in the world As Steve points out without the right FRAME PLATFORM not seen in the surroundings then no matter how good it is never get the recognition I would love to exhibit sell my work can you help me please Love to watch listen to you I really get your ethos of life and living With love beautiful vibes energy Lou Quigley --LOUART23! (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from AuroraBotega (10:10, 25 November 2023)
Hello SmokyJoe --AuroraBotega (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello User:AuroraBotega.
 * What do you think of Wikipedia?
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Utpal Kanta (03:58, 27 November 2023)
Hi. Can you pls guide me how to create pages on wikipedia on notable individuals and companies? Also how to make those pages effective. Is there any way to use wikipedia as part of digital marketing --Utpal Kanta (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. Yes.  Yes, but it is a misuse of Wikipedia.
 * tell me about yourself please. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 27 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Sudhakarmishrain (05:24, 30 November 2023)
Hey, Sir I Can Create New Article’s I have Working experience but why Pencil icon is not visible on new Pages for me ? --Sudhakarmishrain (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Sudhakarmishrain,
 * You are not Autoconfirmed. That is why. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi SmokeyJoe :) I'm looking to interview people here, feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletion of Robert Taylor (Australian businessman)


The article Robert Taylor (Australian businessman) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Taylor Square was named after Allen Taylor not Robert Taylor. No evidence this person is notable. No references at all to show where any of the information came from."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  D r e a m Focus  19:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Show me 182.183.29.91 (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you.
 * you are too. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)