User talk:TechnoSquirrel69/Archive 3

About Radical Feminism
Hi, could you point what did you find in my edit of the Radical Feminism page that wasn't "neutral"? I added mayor sources, sources that incidentaly have soffered concealing before. I also happened to find a lot of unapropiate and biased language that I suppose now is back in the page. "Neutrality" becomes missinformation when it comes to erase facts in order to avoid conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandaCastaño (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey AnandaCastaño, thanks for your message. I seem to have accidentally pressed the wrong button while reverting your edit, sorry about that! The reason I disapprove of your edit was due to your unexplained removal of sourced content. Your edit summary "Information about Andrea Dworkin was inaccurate. Language employed was highly biased. Men are not radical feminists." did not justify why you took out people's names earlier in the section, repeatedly removed the term trans-exclusionary, or deleted nearly an entire paragraph of criticism of the author (diff). It looks to me like you made several different changes — additions, removals, and copyedits — in a single edit. Unfortunately, that means I had to undo all of it when I reverted you. Feel free to restore the content that you added, but please start a discussion on the talk page of the article before removing any prose again, as you have to provide more of a reason than just the assertion that the information is inaccurate. Also, I'd recommend in the future that you break up your edits based on the changes you're making; make additions and removals in separate edits and explain what you're doing in your edit summary. This makes it much easier for other editors to understand what's happening with the article, and in case someone feels the need to revert one of your edits, they can simply revert a specific change you made instead of having to erase all of your contributions. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Undid
Hi, I read your message. I realize I should have made my summary more accurate. I just revised the page, adding more information and removing false details. There are still more incorrect facts that I intend to correct, but I am currently too tired to do so. Weregonnabeheros (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Weregonnabeheros, I'd also suggest that you break up your edits based on the changes you're making. For example, remove content in one edit and explain why in your edit summary, then add new content in a different edit. This makes it much easier for other editors to understand what you're doing and will hopefully prevent your edits from being reverted in the future. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 0xDeadbeef


 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Tamzin


 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Pppery

Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss · TheresNoTime
 * The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
 * There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections.  is the reserve commissioner.
 * Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
 * Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
 * Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
 * Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
 * An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
 * The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Quick note on Template:Db-gs
Thanks for your edits to Template:Db-gs. Isn't WP:ARBPIA covered under WP:CT/A-I? I was under the impression that they were, you may want to see WP:GS, as that is what I based off of initially. You also forgot Template:Db-gs-deleted. Awesome Aasim 00:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Awesome Aasim: You're absolutely right. I admit I got a bit lost in the sauce with all of the WP: links (WP:ARGH!) when I was making those edits. I'll go ahead and revert myself now, and I'll probably update the documentation to make it a bit more clear if I get the time tomorrow. Thanks for your message! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Vince Okerman moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Vince Okerman. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while. Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey UtherSRG, I'm the AfC reviewer who accepted that draft. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on why you didn't feel this one passed the notability guidelines. I myself thought this was a borderline case, but given that both sources look reliable and discuss the subject in depth, I felt that was the bare minimum to constitute significant coverage. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The contents of the article are essentially "X is Y". and that's too short. If there is additional information in the references, that should be added to the article. Biographies need to assert notability, not just have references that are borderline. It was otherwise eligible as WP:CSD. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @UtherSRG: So there's a couple of different things here. The content of the article is irrelevant to an assessment of the subject's notability, which is the original reason you draftified it. I agree; the article is too short in its current state and could stand to be expanded, but there is no policy or guideline that endorses deletion (or draftification) based on the fact that an article is a stub. I am also not aware that articles supported by reliable sources qualify under A7. Granted, the lack of a claim of significance might be a red flag for an A7 under most circumstances, but significance does not need to be asserted in cases where notability (or even notability) is demonstrated through the references. Indeed, quoting from WP:SIGNIFICANCE:  —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, which is why I didn't CSD it and instead drafted it so that it can be improved without threat of deletion. The draftify tool is a bit lacking in possible choices (other than fill in the blank) for draftification reasons. I chose "needs more sources" but perhaps it would have been better if I'd written in a less generic reason. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused now. What is the actual reason that you draftified the article? Since we've ascertained that the content of the article was not an issue, and the article could not have been eligible for speedy deletion, the only possible issue it could have is with with notability. However, you're now saying you draftified due to another concern? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * (Forgot to ping.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the assertion of notability in the sources provided? WP:SIGNIFICANCE is an essay, not policy. CSD A7 could apply, but I chose instead to be lenient and draftify so that the assertion of notability can be made. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @UtherSRG: I used Google Translate to get a rough idea of what the Dutch sources were reporting on; there's some discussion of the subject's social media following and artistic collaboration with OnePlus. Like I said earlier, this is lower than the amount of coverage I'd prefer to see, but seems to just barely meet the threshold of significant coverage. Also, Credible claim of significance is linked in the hatnote at — I've always interpreted the essay as a page to provide context for the appropriate applications of the criterion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Typhoon Haikui (2023)
I had been distracted by a death in my family, and had forgotten that I had reserved it. I have accepted it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, Robert McClenon. I'm really sorry to hear about your family member; I hope you're keeping well and taking care of yourself in light of that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that things will be normal again Friday morning after I get back from the memorial service. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Conctacting authors for adding images in a topic
Hello.I found your nickname on lichen article. I captured some good photographie × 10 on my olive trees today. Would you like to insert them in the lichen articles? I need how to send the image files to you or another author for evalutation. Ivanmellace (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Ivanmellace! I'm not a major contributor to the Lichen article, I've just made some small changes to combat vandalism on the page. If you'd like to upload images, consider doing it on Commons, bearing in mind that you will have to release them under a compatible free license. Once the files are uploaded, you can start a discussion on the talk page of the article to source other editors' opinions on how to best insert the images. You can also read through Help:Pictures and learn how to insert them into the article yourself. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Really thanks! I was afraid of searching all the help pages. Ivanmellace (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This PREMIUM-DELUXE-SUPER-BARNSTAR has been given to you for helping out making the Until This Shakes Apart article

 * Hey thanks, Babysharkboss2! I frankly didn't do very much except clean it up and hit the accept button, all the other credit goes to you. I've got the article on my watchlist, but I hope keep editing and make it into the best version possible. Who knows, maybe even send it in at GAN or FAC one day? Thanks again! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:23, 13 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi TechnoSquirrel69. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at the permissions page 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, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
 * Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
 * 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hey man im josh! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks a lot, DreamRimmer! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

AfC: Draft:Conjugate gradient squared method
I've added a background section to give some context for what the algorithm does. What else should I add to the article in order to provide more context and make the technical information easier to understand? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey MtPenguinMonster, thanks for taking my feedback in stride and working to improve this draft! I think you've done good work in making the technical concepts a bit easier to understand for non-mathematicians, but I have a couple of other pointers that should help you get your draft accepted. Firstly, make sure the references you've provided prove that the subject passes the general notability guideline, which is one of the most important criteria that AfC reviewers are checking for. Also, I don't see any inline citations in § Background; it would help if you found some sources to verify that as well (or even reuse the existing sources if they cover that information). If you need more in-depth feedback, you can also ask at the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics, as they are likely to have much more experience in this subject area than I do. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

RfD relists
Hi, what I'm seeing a lot at RfD in the past months when I've perused it is: I wonder whether it would be more helpful to generally close discussions after the second relist than the third, which is how XfDs in general tend to be done. Particularly at RfD, redirects' individual utility/harm are small so 3 weeks is more than enough time to evaluate their merits. Your close at is excellent in hindsight, and – now that you're pretty experienced in seeing how these discussions tend to go – that sort of pre-empting how a discussion is going to end would streamline the process. Don't be afraid to find a tenuous consensus at RfD either – it's appreciated by many.  J947  † edits 09:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussions are relisted three times with little participation.
 * These discussions are nearly inevitably closed as no consensus.
 * Hey J947, thanks for your message! I appreciate you taking the time to share some of your experience and give me feedback on my closes. I'm flattered that you think I'm experienced at clerking at deletion venues, but I've actually only really been participating there for less than a month. As such, I tend to be very conservative when making decisions, both because I know I've still not encountered the various kinds of results that can occur, and because I like to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm making an accurate assessment of the consensus. I imagine that as I keep doing it, I'll be able to make these decisions earlier and with more confidence, but I've got a ways to go until then. I will, however, keep in mind your note about repeatedly relisting discussions with minimal participation. Thanks again, and sorry for my delayed response — family always takes priority over my other work around the holidays! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding – it's great that you've taken the time to do so.I'll just put it out there that, conventionally speaking, relisting for a third time in an uncommon affair. If you do desire to be conservative – which for a new (but experienced in number of closes) closer is certainly a good trait to have – from my experience at RfD, no consensus after two times of asking tends to be perceived as a more straightforward approach than three relists. Of course, there are occasions where three relists are warranted, but particularly if there's been no discussion after the previous two relists a third does look unusual in that a consensus is unlikely to arise. All depending on the specific scenario and level of consensus, of course.  J 947  ‡ edits 09:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Green Gully Reserve RfD
Technically it is 3 to 1 for a retarget, how is that a no-consensus? I hope more people vote for a retarget, but still, I find it odd that not many at the AfD, then how many people turn up at the deletion review. Strange how inconsistent Wikipedians are at this game. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Govvy: ...Okay? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; I relisted the RfD because of the amount of previous discussion that has gone into this, for which I'd prefer a clearer consensus to evaluate before closing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Re; 16 year block
I literally wrote 16 years. I didn't pick the specifics after. I just enjoy writing nonstandard lengths. Technically it's not illegal. If you wanna change it go ahead. It's just boring to indef all the time. The log page that records it only updates every 28 days. Mitch 32 (won't you be my neighbor?) 01:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mitchazenia: Well, I'm probably not going to be changing your block settings anytime soon, as I'm not an administrator. I don't really have an issue with it either; I was just curious about your decision, as well as a bit intrigued — I didn't even know the log had a "decade" denomination! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The block ability works in fortnights too. I've had a few blocks for multiple millennia. For reasons that are insane to me we have a database page that records unusual blocks. Mitch 32 (won't you be my neighbor?) 01:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mitchazenia: You can't say something like that and then not link to it; I've gotta see this! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the only one I have done in millennia, but this is the one I got crap for. Mitch 32 (won't you be my neighbor?) 01:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Reed P Oliver
You and @Explicit appear to have edit conflicted over Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11. It's been relisted on the November 18 page but the relisting notice has been marked as "keep" and the RfD notice removed from the redirect. I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be kept or relisted, but it needs to be one or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, Thryduulf! I'm also not too worried about it either way, but thought that further debate would not end up being very productive since an apparently official government source was produced that misspells Oliver's name. Explicit, if you feel like further discussion would be helpful, I'm happy to reverse my closure. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyedit in Square pyramid
Hi, @TechnoSquirrel69. It seems I have done some suggestions in the GAN Square pyramid. Would you like to check the grammar and some other writing style? I have done some copyedited as well, but it seems I'm a little bit worried that it will create more problems. Thank you for your promise in the discussion anyway; I appreciate your work. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Dedhert.Jr! I've been quite busy off-wiki recently, and might not be able to get to the article for a few days. I'll make some time next week for it, though; feel free to remind me about that if I forget! Definitely also check in with David Eppstein about some next steps you can take with the review by yourself. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ruru Madrid
Greetings! In reference to the edit you reverted, an IP user made the previous edit, not me. Thanks. --  Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️  🩺 • 💉 02:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Doclys! I've placed the warning on the IP's talk page instead. Feel free to remove my message from your talk page as well. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Attih Soul
Thank you for accepting the article that I submitted. Could you explain what it means: "The Article has an unclear cation style" and how this can be fixed? Royal88888 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, Royal88888. Essentially, the issue I'm seeing is that the citations are inconsistent: some of them don't mention which website or source they were taken from, some don't include the names of the authors or have incorrect authors, that kind of stuff. Citing sources has a lot of information on how to properly format citations, so you might start there if you want more details on what I'm talking about. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see what you are saying. I use the Automated Citation feature that pulls the info, and sometimes it seems to get it wrong I will review and correct the issues. Royal88888 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Translations
Please, can you help me with these translations from Japanese to English: Hokkaido Otaru Fisheries High School (ja:北海道小樽水産高等学校), Forestry Agency (ja:林野庁), Kotanbetsu (ja:古丹別駅), Onishika (ja:鬼鹿村), Brown Bear Storm (ja:羆嵐), Japan Hunting Friends Association (ja:大日本猟友会), Hokkaido Government Police Department (ja:北海道庁警察部), Haboro Police Station (ja:羽幌警察署), 28th Infantry Regiment (Japan) (ja:歩兵第28連隊), Japan Action Enterprise (ja:ジャパンアクションエンタープライズ), Kaoru Takagi (ja:高木薫), Hokkaido Wine (ja:北海道ワイン), Karasumaru family (ja:烏丸家), Taisha Station (ja:大社駅), Motoko Baba (ja:馬場元子), Maiasa Shinbun (毎朝新聞), Champion Futoshi (ja:チャンピオン太)? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.33.91 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you do it? 80.117.104.59 (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I'm assuming you're the same person who was previously editing from 87.21.33.91; I've left a response on the talk page of that IP address. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Nick Kyrgios page deletion, 6 December 2023 by SueoftheAntipodes
Hi TechnoSquirrel69. Thankyou for your interest and discussion of my deletions which as I wrote in each edit explanation were tentative. Please read my explanations. The beginning of this section calls for our help to reduce the section which is too long and does not reflect the encyclopedic nature. I have checked carefully this entry against many other player entries, none of which include a subjective section on 'current public perception'. We should not include statements from people that were made many years ago that they may not now agree with, naming them. A lot of these sources came before the new revelations made in 2023 when Kyrgios's mental struggles have been revealed and public perceptions have obviously changed. He has not played for a year. Although some of these statements are quite positive they seem defensive and are included at random. SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey SueoftheAntipodes, thanks for your message. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, and the addition or removal of content from articles has to be in line with the verifiability policy. If you believe there are sources out there that show that the current article content is no longer relevant, I urge you to the content — citing your sources — rather than simply remove it. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Have just read the verifiability policy. I have just noticed you have reverted every one of my changes made yesterday. I first read the Nick Kyrgios WP entry in June when researching Australian athletes and was dismayed at its bias. I decided to become a volunteer when I read that several sections asked people to help summarise, reduce, update, bring in line with encyclopedic tone. So I did a great deal of research and put questions and topics on the talk page. No replies. So I began to check sources and begin to prepare material. I spent an entire snowed in vacation doing exactly what you say and have gradually introduced new material with carefully checked resources from 2019 onwards but especially this year, using Kyrgios's own words and summaries from ATP and Guardian/Times/Tennis specialists. For every update/revision I made yesterday I gave a detailed explanation. One of the more important topics is 'Current Public Perception'. This is a very subjective notion and not encyclopedic. Every public figure has divisive and polarised perceptions. 'Current' cannot include 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019. It's nearly 2024. 'Public' is not a few people quoted. No other player has a section like this. As to section headings, I tried to change these. EG 2018 is currently 'Clay Season Absence'. The notable incidents are First Australian title, First Win over Andy Murray, Second Laver Cup Appearance'. If you are not familiar with tennis this may not seem important. But the negative (Clay season absence) says nothing about all the positive achievements. I would be extremely grateful if the 'huggle rollback' (what is that?) would be looked at again. All my sources were carefully cited. All my changes were explained. If there is no way to upgrade this entry then there is no point in your editor requesting volunteers to assist with summarising and cleaning it up.SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SueoftheAntipodes: I just saw the question you asked on DoubleGrazing's talk page. I've been a little busy the last 24 hours, but I'll get back to you soon. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks.I would really appreciate that. Have had a careful look through the entry again and it seems that the bad year of 2019 when Kyrgios was going through severe depression partly due to intense media scrutiny is the last year when most volunteers finally gave up. That's why the 'current perception' and so forth has not been updated. Problem is, he seems to be very influential outside tennis with many millions of followers from other demographics, so a 'current perception' is probably okay as long as it is updated. So if you can tell me where we went wrong with the correct approach for WP a few of us (seems to be at least one other interested in updating) can continue. SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

January 6 edit
Hello! Thank you for your feedback on my edits to the infobox. I'm just wondering what wasn't neutral about my edit? I would actually argue that including all these other movements and ideologies is less neutral. Blue Lives Matter, for instance, is a movement that some who stormed the capitol were sympathetic to. But it's not an organization, let alone a party to the attack. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were the only groups that conspired during the attack, and they're the only ones that have been charged. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to bring up another issue that might explain some of my edits. Before I created account, I looked at this article sometimes. And there was a period where a user made everything specific to the proud boys and oath keepers to either take blame away from trump and individual protestors, or make a point about the groups. This was taken away later in the lead, but left in the body, to the point where individual protesters actions were represented by the groups.
 * Also, if my use of "militias and rioters" wasn't neutral, here's my thought process. This article is about the attack. There were peaceful protesters. But the article is talking about the attack, which was only perpetrated by rioters and militias. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your message, Personisinsterest. I want to note that the parties listed in the infobox are the ones reported by reliable sources to have participated in the insurrection — it has only partial relevance to who planned the attack, or who were prosecuted for their actions during the attack. Some of the groups you removed have been mentioned several times in sources to have been parties; for example, Groypers, Boogaloo, and assorted white supremacist groups. I highly recommend that you start a discussion on the article's talk page about these changes, as they are likely to be controversial, and could benefit from some conversation to build consensus before implementing. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Bronco Mendenhall prematurely defined as New Mexico Coach
Someone falsely edited Bronco Mendenhall's page here. There is no confirmation anwhere that he is the New Mexico coach yet. I edited it, but it was returned to the premature and false definition of his title. 67.61.223.48 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message! After reviewing the sources, I can see why you removed that content; it seems Mendenhall was only the defensive coordinator in New Mexico several years ago, not head coach. However, I want to note that I reverted your edit because I originally believed it was vandalism; I'd ask that you include the reasoning for your removal in your edit summary in the future so that other editors understand why you're making those changes. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Small Town Heroes
Those are legitimate edits of official content that has been released by the production companies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information Citing a name alone does not have value as there can be thousands of companies in the world with the same name. You need to have links to show which is the actual referred company as this is basis for valid and accurate information.

Dont just claim we are editing without our knowledge and understanding of what is fact or inappropriate! Danteyoyo18 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * im expecting a reply for your false accusations Danteyoyo18 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Danteyoyo18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – vandalism, including: repeated addition of inappropriate external links. 1 —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I expect that you revoke this false report, undo your reverts to legitimate edits that i have been making. As someone that is not affiliated with the content that i am editing you have no right to make false accusations. Who are editors? everyone starts contributing based on what they know and what is accurate for the market to know. So retract your statements and claims. Danteyoyo18 (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not an false report, as inappropriate external links do not belong on any article. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So why are there similar links on the articles which was reverted that were made by others? understand the objective, there can be a 1000 companies or people with the same name. We have the objective to ensure that accurate information is on wikipedia so that the correct identification is made for each topic here. So in this context a link is appropriate as it gives proper identification to what is cited in the article. So if its a name it give actual identification to who it is. Danteyoyo18 (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Untamed1910! Danteyoyo18, please click on the links I've provided in the messages on your talk page. Whether or not you intended to do so, your edits were in conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. You repeated your changes after multiple warnings, which is why I've asked for an administrator to assess your account. If you have questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I will not be retracting my statements as they are entirely legitimate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * External links promoting a company/person/business is not allowed. However this is not in the context of promotion or promoting nor advertising which does not breach the guidelines. The objective is that the names are identifiable for users of wikipedia to know what is the accurate information in the market. Similar a film in Asia could have the same name as a film in Europe but how do you identify which is which? the best way is a source to the original content which is through a link or imdb and etc. So again i reiterate the purpose and again i have to stress out to you that im editing based on what i know in the industry, i cant edit something that i dont know of and nor is there any affiliation.
 * So again, dont make false accusation on what i did, take time to understand the context behind it which i have explained above so you can have a better understanding as this benefits the wikipedia community Danteyoyo18 (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Which one is more neutral?
Hey, @TechnoSquirrel69, following up on your suggestion on my talk page titled, December 2023, I want to ask you a question. Per your opinion and concerning the Neutral Point of View, which version do you think would ensure more neutrality and impartiality? If the original text is better, do you have any advice and suggestions?

Original text:

Limestone cliffs with caves, collapsed cave systems, and archaeological sites are found about Phang Nga Bay. Around 10,000 years ago, when sea levels were lower, it was possible to walk from Phuket and Krabi.

Reverted text you did:

Phang Nga Bay is characterized by its limestone cliffs, which encompass numerous caves and collapsed cave systems. These geological formations also include a variety of archaeological sites, providing insights into the region's historical and prehistorical periods. Approximately 10,000 years ago, during a time when sea levels were significantly lower than they are today, it was possible to travel on foot between what are now the islands of Phuket and Krabi. This historical detail highlights the geological and climatic changes that have shaped the current landscape of Phang Nga Bay.

My revised version:

Phang Nga Bay is characterized by its limestone cliffs, which include numerous caves and collapsed cave systems. The region is also notable for its archaeological sites. Geological evidence suggests that approximately 10,000 years ago, when sea levels were significantly lower, the areas now known as Phuket and Krabi were interconnected and could be traversed by land. This historical geology indicates significant changes in sea levels and landscape over millennia, shaping the current geography of Phang Nga Bay.

Thank you! Bossza007 Here (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, Bossza007 Here. The changes you're proposing here are definitely phrased better, but there's actually two reasons I originally reverted your edits. You seem to have fixed the situation regarding compliance with the neutral point of view policy, but your changes were also completely unsourced. I'd urge you to add citations to reliable sources before adding any content back into the article. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you for answering my question, @TechnoSquirrel69. I appreciate that you pointed out the significance of the reliable source for Wikipedia. I can assure you that I will be adhering to it, which as an editor, I completely comprehend the expectations we hold, especially when working on an open encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Again, thanks for being constructive during our conversation, I value the input you have given! Bossza007 Here (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Movie date change
I really want to change diary of a wimpy kid christmas: cabin fever to be december 7, not 8. I want this because people would be happy of this change. 150.176.175.182 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I hope you can understand that Wikipedia doesn't change just to make people happy, those changes must be supported by reliable sources. Considering there are already many sources stating that the film released on December 8, it's likely that the changes you made were factually incorrect. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Braskem article edit reversion
Hey, @TechnoSquirrel69! Thank you for warning me about reverting the edit I made to the Braskem article. I believe there has been a misunderstanding, as I had added two citations as sources for the section I wrote shortly after I published it, prior to your deletion of the section. If that's ok, I am going to add the section and its citations again. Thanks! Felipe Franceschet (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Felipe Franceschet! You're absolutely right; you indeed had already provided citations, but I seemed to have missed that when I reverted you since I was only looking at the last edit that you'd made — sorry about that! I'm still getting used to a new tool which I started using today, so I really appreciate your patience with my mistake. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ganesha811 · JPxG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ajpolino · Lourdes · Mairi · RockMFR · Somno · WilyD
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox · Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox · Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration
 * Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
 * The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
 * Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nurture (album)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nurture (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Skyshifter -- Skyshifter (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capitol Hill mystery soda machine
The article Capitol Hill mystery soda machine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Capitol Hill mystery soda machine for comments about the article, and Talk:Capitol Hill mystery soda machine/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of APK -- APK (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my God you did it. Good job. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 18:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Queen of Hearts: Thank you! :D See also: the DYK. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capitol Hill mystery soda machine
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Capitol Hill mystery soda machine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of APK -- APK (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mr. Wonky's Magical Playtime Pizza
Please take extra care and make sure to check what namespace you are in before reverting on Huggle. That was a draft, and that was the creator of the draft, and since its in the draft mainspace the creator can do whatever they wish with regard to content. If it is obvious vandalism on another's users draft, that's a different story. I have reverted your warnings as well. Courtesy ping:, this applies to you as well. Thank you.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 21:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Yoshi24517 I will make sure to check the namespace from now on, and if it is a draft, I will check if they're the creator. Koshchki123 (she/they) (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, Yoshi24517! I've removed the warning and left a note on their talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Phillipnelson99 and I were trying to let you know on the Huggle IRC built in chat trying to tell you the same thing, but you must have not seen it. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing!  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 21:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just realized I had that closed for some reason. It's back open now! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A mere reflex reversion?
Hi TS.

I note your reversion of my well-researched correction of an unjustified assertion regarding the terms "grand staff" and "great staff" at Staff (music). There was no citation to support the claim that American and British English differ on the relevant point; and now (what's worse) there is no indication that either ("great staff [or stave]" in particular) famously and often means the 11-line staff that OED and other sources mention. 49.190.56.203 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I agree that it's an issue that the content in the article was not sourced, but I reverted your edit as your changes were no better. I appreciate that you've started a discussion on the article's talk page, which is the right thing to do. However, it would be helpful to support your proposal with reliable sources as evidence to your point. As for the supposed lack of evidence for the difference between English varieties, I will note that it is exceedingly common, so much so that the fact is mentioned in the lead of the same article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources? You don't think OED is a reliable source? Far better than the complete absence of sources for the text before I got to it, you'd have to agree. Justify your claim that my changes were "no better" than the inaccurate, misleading, and unsourced text that I altered. The honest thing to do now: agree that the material as it stood was defective and misleading, and improve it as a responsible editor. Not one who reverts as a matter of reflex. You left a dubious claim in place, despite my knowledgeable effort to amend it (with appeal to the world's highest authority on English usage).
 * 49.190.56.203 (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The OED doesn't have every word or phrase, and I never said it wasn't a reliable source. I took issue with you adding content without a citation and removing existing content without adequate explanation. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What I removed had no citation, and was inaccurate and misleading. What reliable sources are you now proposing on the relevant point, with more weight of authority than OED? Of course OED does not have every word or phrase. Here that's completely irrelevant. 49.190.56.203 (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Pod Generation
Hey thanks for letting me know IMDb was an unreliable source. I’ll be sure to keep that in mind next time. I do have a question to ask you if you’re willing to answer, but preferably through a private messaging system. Is there any way I can get ahold of you? LalaJackman (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey LalaJackman, I'm happy to help, but I'd prefer to communicate with you on Wikipedia as much as possible. I may still have answers for you or may be able to direct you to someone else who does even if you don't want to be too specific on a public talk page. What's your question? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not very experienced making pages. Is there someone that can help make a couple pages with me? 2600:1700:1D21:7D00:B434:36E7:CB25:5CD8 (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Samuel Palmer
I was born near Shoreham, it is not near Seven oaks or in Kent, it is near Brighton, in East Sussex. Also the river at Shoreham is the River Avon, not Dent or whatever it was that was named. If you need proof just look on a map. 2A00:23C8:2E43:A501:3CA0:6A93:53E4:BAD (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey there, thanks for your message! Are you sure you're not talking about Shoreham-by-Sea, which is in West Sussex? Shoreham, Kent, the place the article is referring to, is different. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Jeff Grimes
I'm puzzled by your revert on Jeff Grimes: Special:Diff/1189766178. There's nothing non-neutral about describing Grimes as "AHC" (assistant head coach). It's not sourced, though that's a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mackensen: I believe I hit the wrong button on that one; the reason I reverted it was for being unsourced. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Detrans (short film)
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Z1720: I believe there's been an error here? I accepted this article as an AfC reviewer, but I didn't create, substantially edit, or nominate it — those credits belong to Davest3r08. I'm happy to just copy the template onto their talk page, but I'm not sure if it might be better left to the bot. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you got the credit because the DYK nomination said that you moved it to the mainspace, so editors assumed that you had completed the work to create the article. I am not sure how to proceed at this point, and perhaps you can start a new thread on WT:DYK to explain the situation, where more experienced editors than me will know how to give assign credit to the correct location. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, it looks like I'm being credited because of this change to the DYKmake template, which was then reflected in the queue when the hook was promoted. Since the hook is now live, there don't seem to be any other templates to be corrected. I think I'll just copy this over to the talk page where it belongs. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!


– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message. – robertsky (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Robertsky: Thanks for your work handling the the barnstars and the good wishes; happy holidays to you as well! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

 * Thanks, DrowssapSMM! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nurture (album)
The article Nurture (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nurture (album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Nurture (album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Skyshifter -- Skyshifter (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the GA! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Another Believer; I appreciate you for stopping by! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No prob! I was just following along, since the page has been on my watchlist ever since I created the redirect back in 2020. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * @Midori No Sora: No problem! It's my pleasure to keep the encyclopedia free of nonsense. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

edit to The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam
Hello, I'm Rise after falling, I noticed that in this edit to The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, was removed, I did not remove any content, only moved it to another location in the page and added information. I described every change with an edit summary. Can you explain me why did you remove my edits? Thank you. —Rise after falling (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)(UTC)
 * Hey Rise after falling, thanks for your message. I reverted your edit as while your edit summary only mentioned removal of the In use template, you also removed the entire infobox without explanation. You have done so again with this edit. Can you please explain why you're removing the infobox? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice I removed the infobox, it was on mistake, I didn't find a way to remove the in use template in the Visual Editor, so I deleted the text of the template, probably not noticing I am deleting the infobox text too, I will notice next time not to delete the infobox again - thanks for noticing and fixing it.
 * The other changes I did and wrote in the summery are -
 * -  added a summary paragraph 
 * -  added a cite and shortened the new summary 
 * - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dhimmi:_Jews_and_Christians_Under_Islam&diff=1192945840&oldid=1192718408#Thesis_and_structure →‎Thesis and structure: parted the paragraph to 2 paragraphs]
 * -  Added a descriptions of the first chapters in part 1 
 * Did I do anything wrong in this changes?
 * Thanks Rise after falling (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rise after falling: No worries about the infobox! As for why your other changes were reverted, that's unfortunately just how the rollback tool works; the software I was using to view your edits only gives me the option to revert all of them. That being said, I've selectively restored your constructive edits, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your attention! Rise after falling (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Transnistria
I deleted because Artsakh does not exist. Can I return my edit please ? Thank you. Fridrik2222 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Fridrik2222, thanks for your message! I reverted your edits because you were not adequately explaining your changes in your edit summaries. Feel free to reinstate your changes, provided you do them with an explanation. Also, I've left a notice on your talk page linking to information about contentious topics. You are permitted to edit in this topic area, but you should be especially careful as there are several editing restrictions that apply. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry please… Fridrik2222 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Capitol Hill mystery soda machine
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is such a fun DYK! Thanks for your work, TechnoSquirrel69!! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it, Crunchydillpickle; thanks for stopping by! Some of the credit also goes to Epicgenius and the DYK people on the Discord server who helped me out with writing the hook. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

George Daniels Warchmaker
I have spent many hours editing the page on George Daniels and had all edits removed. I left a message yesterday asking how to cite my references and never had a reply. Most of the existing page is dead wrong and although the citations are correct the citations themselves are by and large all wrong in content. I am using two sources for all my edits and am happy to add them if I know how to do so. If all my hard work cannot be retained then the page can just stay wrong and I will find something more valuable to do with my time Alfie5890 (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Alfie5890, thanks for your message! If you need more information about how to add citations, Help:Referencing for beginners would be the place to start. It may also be easier for you to add references using the VisualEditor, so consider trying that as well. The changes you've made are still archived in the article's, so feel free to reinstate your changes along with the added citations. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added the main citation. This is the base document I used for all changes and is an incredibly well researched document by Sothebys.  I am not sure how to re-instate changes I made can you please do? Alfie5890 (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just following up my request above TechnoSquirrel69 Alfie5890 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Alfie5890, I'm just responding to some other obligations I have real quick. I'll be right back to help you out with this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciated! Alfie5890 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alfie5890: Quick question: do you have a link to the source which you're getting this information from, or is it an offline source? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Its offline. I found many references to it online though for example in the City of London Archives. See: https://search.lma.gov.uk/LMA_DOC/LMA%204636.pdf
 * And here's the reference in that link:
 * LMA/4636/D/01/019 Not available for online ordering. Please see staff George Daniels Retrospective Exhibition 19-23 Jul 2006, Sotheby's Articles, draft catalogue introduction by Andrew Crisford, flyer, agreements for exhibited items and consultancy and correspondence with Sotheby's and Bobinet Limited 1 file 2006 Alfie5890 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see one of watches that came up for sale in the Sotheby's 6th July 2017 London sale (Lot 78) where they reference the 2006 publication:
 * Literature
 * Terence Camerer Cuss, The English Watch 1585-1975, 2009, pp. 452-453, pl. 295
 * Sotheby's, George Daniels Retrospective Exhibition Catalogue, 2006, pp. 28-29
 * George Daniels, All in Good Time, Reflections of a Watchmaker, 2013, pl. 31, pp. 95-96 & 221
 * Michael Clerizo, George Daniels, A Master Watchmaker & His Art, 2015, pp.64-65
 * George Daniels, The Practical Watch Escapement, 2016, col. pl. Alfie5890 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see https://www.watchprozine.com/indepedents/independent-master-watchmakers-in-between-book-covers-/9995281/16/
 * This has pictures of the book and its contents Alfie5890 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * During his career, George Daniels’ work earned him many awards, one being the prestigious Tompion Medal – then, only the fifth ever to be awarded. He was a Master of the Clockmakers’ Company of London and was awarded their Gold Medal, a rare honour, as well as the Gold Medal of the British Horological Institute, the Gold Medal of the City of London and the Kullberg Medal of the Stockholm Watchmakers’ Guild. Already a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE), Daniels was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2010 New Year Honours.
 * In July 2006 Sotheby’s of London staged a retrospective exhibition of all Daniels work, which was the first time all pieces were displayed together and presented a unique view of the progression of his work
 * From: Senza titolo-28 (maximagallery.com) Alfie5890 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * let me know what you think. Its quoted in most books and articles written on George Daniels as it was the only retrospective held on his works. Alfie5890 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alfie5890: Thanks for all of your clarifications. I'm going to restore your edits assuming good faith, and ask that you provide inline citations for all of the text as soon as you can. The way to create inline citations on Wikipedia is to format them, for example, like this: You could choose to use a citation template, which removes the need for you to manually format the text. Using the  tags will automatically create a footnote containing the citation text, so you don't need to worry about adding it to the references section. Also, if the source you're reading from has an ISBN or ISSN identifier, I highly recommend that you add those to the citation, which will make it much easier for readers to track down the sources and verify the information in the article. Let me know if you have any other questions, I'm happy to help! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Clovermoss
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Julia W · Marasmusine · PBS



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Aoidh · HJ Mitchell · Sdrqaz · Spicy · ToBeFree · Vanamonde93 · Z1720
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Maxim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno · SilkTork

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Aoidh · Firefly · Sdrqaz · ToBeFree · Z1720
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Maxim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno · SilkTork

Arbitration
 * Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.
 * Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
 * The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous
 * The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please redact
Hi @TechnoSquirrel69 you just removed the revision history and edit summary at Bhajan Lal Sharma. Can you please do so at Talk:Ayodhya Junction railway station. The WP:UNCIVIL comment was made at Revision as of 10:32, 29 December 2023. I first struck it, then on a second thought I removed it bcoz it was too much hateful, then it was restored by a user saying it should be kept for record. My point is that it is not a sock vote that should be kept for record but a hateful vandalism comment by a user who was WP:NOTTHERE. If you think my request and actions are ok, kindly remove the revision history. Thank you.  ShaanSengupta  Talk 10:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Shaan Sengupta, I'm not inclined to take any action here at the moment; I'm not involved with this discussion, and there seems to already be a disagreement between you and Akshadev on how to perform the redaction. I'd advise you to discuss this with them on their talk page, and probably implement one of the solutions given at WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask me to "remove the revision history" — are you looking for a revision deletion? If so, that action can only be performed by an administrator (I'm not one). Let me know if there's any other way I can help! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I exactly meant revision deletion. And I mistook you to be an admin bcoz I saw an edit reverted by you had revision history deleted. My bad. Anyways since the hate words are now removed, I think it can be left like that. Cheers!  ShaanSengupta  Talk 04:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The the 3rd point of WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL clearly says that if you see a vulgar/hate comment, quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil. And I exactly did the same (rewritten!), so please don't pull it like a string any further. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™   🗿  16:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)