User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 39


 * This is my archive for threads from 2024 that don't belong in my themed archives.

Happy New Year, WereSpielChequers!


Happy New Year! WereSpielChequers, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

YGM
Hi WSC - just letting you know I have sent you an email; hope it has reached you well? Best, Patient Zerotalk 08:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Critical point (physics" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_point_(physics&redirect=no Critical point (physics] 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. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Harish Bhaskaran moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Harish Bhaskaran. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because as a Wikipedia in residence you should know better, both the peacock and lack of notability validation.. 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. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi we don't own articles, also I'm neither a Wikipedian in Residence nor a major contributor to that article. I hope you aren't going to send such messages to everyone who categorises articles or fixes typos in them.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The original creator of the article is a Wikipedian in residence. My apologies, the draftification tacked you on and I should have checked first. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Fulla (doll" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fulla_(doll&redirect=no Fulla (doll] 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. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I created that nine years ago, if we no longer need such redirects so be it. But is it worth anyone's time to discuss a rarely used but accurate redirect?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that they're having a clearout of redirs with unbalanced parentheses. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that, and I assume search will work fine without those brackets. But why bother? Especially as some of these will link a newbie to the topic they wrote or were interested in.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! A lot of pages that make errors in the act of disambiguation have been under higher scrutiny in recent months. The existence of these pages adds unnecessary complexity to incoming redirects, and I've been bundling the redirects that have are specifically unused according to pageviews. Certainly some redirects with such titling can be helpful, as Genie (feral child has been getting over a thousand pageviews monthly as an extreme example. But for the rest of titles that don't have this, the implausibility becomes a maintenance ordeal. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All these ones I created in 2015 were from the list then at User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks - so they were popular in the past, though it maybe that search just ignores the missing bracket these days. I get that we have a problem where a page could plausibly link to multiple things. But otherwise? Redirects are cheap, much cheaper now than when we first decided they were too cheap to worry about how rarely they'd be used.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keiko_(orca&redirect=no Keiko (orca] 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. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Ocean_(L12&redirect=no HMS Ocean (L12] 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. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pocahontas_(1995_film&redirect=no Pocahontas (1995 film] 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. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC) The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vulcan_(mythology&redirect=no Vulcan (mythology] 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. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Keiko (orca" listed at Redirects for discussion ==
 * "HMS Ocean (L12" listed at Redirects for discussion ==
 * "Pocahontas (1995 film" listed at Redirects for discussion ==
 * "Vulcan (mythology" listed at Redirects for discussion ==

Note
I'd like to support your proposal, but wikimedia legal has made it clear that "see deleted" has special issues. So that alone may tank your proposal.

If you remove that part (or split it to a separate proposal) I'd be happy to support : ) - jc37 08:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm aware that this requires at least an RFA like process to vet the candidates, but I'm envisaging at least that. Just that it would be pretty uncontentious for people who are only applying for this right. For starters, as deletion isn't involved all the toxicity about the deletion rights shouldn't come up.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * Personally, when considering unbundling, I would like to see a line drawn somewhere between assessing behaviour, and assessing content-related behaviour/discussions. but I think I can see where you're looking here. - jc37 08:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Spamming and vandalism are pretty clearcut behaviour from people we rarely see anything else from, hence my proposal. I don't think we are far apart, IMHO it is fairly easy to split newbies into goodfaith and badfath. I did consider only unbundling the ability to block just for specific reasons such as NPA, vandalism and spam, with an injunction to leave complicated cases to full admins. But I don't think such rules work, and they could lead to looser definitions of the block reasons that these people can use. Edit count would support a rule that could be encoded in the software.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!

 * Thanks The Herald.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Request about links to British possession
Hi, I found your account on the "recently active administrators" list; I hope it's OK to ask this here. Could you opine on whether 1.) the article British possession is appropriately sourced and cited and 2.) whether links should exist to the article. A dispute has arisen over whether links to the article should exist in other articles. I created and wrote most of the article. Another editor, doesn't like the article and has sought to delete it by various means, while also objecting to my addition relevant links from other articles, claiming that I had added them inappropriately. ,, , , , , , ,

The editor was uncollegial in the AfD:. Having failed to have the article deleted at Articles for deletion/British possession, the editor again resorted to incivility and to incivility by ill-considered accusations of impropriety:.

On the editor's talk page, , @Largoplazo, @W.andrea, and @Oblivy all explained that the editor's removals were unjustified and their accusations inappropriate: The editor remained unrepentant and continues to crusade against links to the article, and against the whole article itself, promising "". A discussion at Talk:British possession proved fruitless, despite the efforts of W.andrea and Oblivy. The editor even added a "citation needed" to an already well-cited paragraph, apparently not taking any account of the existing citations or their content and again repeating that "[recte, thing]". 
 * W.andrea said ""
 * Oblivy said that their actions ""
 * Largoplazo said "" and "

Who is right? If, in contradiction of reliable sources, an editor believes that a given article's topic does not exist (""), is it appropriate for that editor to seek the removal of links to that article if the editor cannot secure consensus deletion of the article? In the last example, the editor twice removed the link to British possession from the article Australia Act 1986, where the continued status of Australia as a British possession is quoted from the words of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Harry Gibbs, and unambiguously refers to the topic of the article British possession. Nevertheless, the objecting editor refuses to justify their actions on Talk:Australia Act 1986. What can be done? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably the only comment I'll contribute here is in response to a quotation I'm seeing here from WCM: . WP:OVERLINKING tells us not to link terms that readers are likely to know (and where the detail in the target article isn't likely to enrich the reader's understanding of the present subject). If so many people don't know what "British possession" means, as WCM asserted, doesn't it following that (a) the article is of value and (b) WP:OVERLINKING isn't applicable and links to that article are also of value? Largoplazo (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're quoting me out of context, its a common phrase that has no real meaning, my comment refers to the fact that people don't understand common phrases don't need their own articles. MOS:OVERLINKING specifically advises against linking common phrases.  What I've done is also being taken out of context, it was simply a spot of WIKIGNOMING cleaning up some of the mess, I've been careful to select only cases where its obvious the phrase had been searched for to add a link to the common phrase.  Even the editors you've misquoted recognise that MOS:OVERLINKING is an issue   It does appear to be the case there was, putting it nicely, some overexuberant linking., the accusation I'd made it an orphan easily refuted by reference to the WP:WLH tool.  This has already been taken up on the talk page. WCM email 07:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to check my understanding of the issue. There was a question as to whether the article should exist, but that has been settled by an AFD discussion. There is an interlinked issue re linking, and whether some of the the links are excessive. My suggestion is that we open a discussion on the talkpage of one of the articles with a disputed link, and focus on the issue of whether each link would be useful to a reader. My own suspicion is that the phrase British Possession meant something different in 1824 to 2024.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was an AfD but that didn't settle the question of whether the article should exist.  The actual close was The result was no consensus‎. There doesn’t seem to be any agreement with what to do with this article, and the discussion has descended into name calling and personal attacks, so I think it’s best to draw a line under it.  As I've noted elsewhere a lot of non-policy based arguments descended into some really bizarre commentary, including editors weren't prepared to share their sources for fear editors weren't legally qualified to understand them.  There was a lot of very angry comments that I found bizarre in an AfD.  I do intend to re-nominate for AfD but was holding off to allow for the editors who defended the article to make something of it.  In 5 months they've done nothing, which to my mind speaks volumes.
 * Other than the original poster there is agreement there has been overlinking, which is recognised by independent commentary on the talk page, the OP's talk page and even by editors who have criticised my removal of links. Earlier this year I was looking for a spot of WP:WIKIGNOME activity and chose to start dealing with the worst of the MOS:OVERLINKING; my MIL was terminally ill, in end-of-life care and to be honest I was just looking for a brief distraction.  Although I was careful to select only those articles where a common phrase had been linked contradicting WP:MOS it provoked a number of bad faith comments on my talk page that the OP and others are now quoting out of context.  Although I made clear what my reasons were, I was instead accused of maliciously removing links because I'd been upset at the AfD outcome.  I really didn't need the hassle so chose to disengage.
 * So we now find ourselves in the situation where the OP is still angry that I nominated the article for deletion and despite numerous editors trying to patiently explain MOS:OVERLINKING on his talk page is persisting with his faulty understanding of policy. In that he is being encouraged by editors who are continuing with the bad faith presumptions on my motives.
 * The three issues I see are:
 * ) the overlinking of a commonly used phrase in contravention of WP:MOS
 * ) an article that is an indiscriminate list of legislation, created by looking for the commonly used expression "British possession", a common phrase that doesn't have a legal meaning outside of use as an abbreviation in legislation
 * ) the forum shopping to multiple talk pages, both in article and user space that is wasting valuable editing time. As an example the OP spammed this discussion to your user space, 2 other articles and the talk page of the article itself.
 * If you have the time to provide some input as an independent SySop to help put discussions back on an even keel I would appreciate it. WCM email 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Wee Curry Monster, I'm sorry to hear about your mother in law. Regardless of why the AFD didn't go the way you wanted, and even if you think those links would be unhelpful to the reader, can I suggest you back off and leave it to others to argue when linking to this article is warranted or not?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm really not bothered in the slightest about the AfD, I'd already backed off and I'd have left it well alone were it not for being dragged back into it by the OP yesterday. As I said, I'd simply appreciate an independent SySop intervening, because I am really rather fed up with the commentary about me rather than content. I also have this nagging feeling other editors who naively make the same edit are due the same treatment.  I have other more useful things I'd rather be doing, so yes I'm happy to back off.  Look, I'm not a WP:DICK, have a thick skin, so if you're of the opinion I'm being WP:DICKish I can handle a WP:TROUTing.  I'm packing up for the evening so you won't have to worry about me further today :).  WCM email 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Raja Pervaiz Ashraf
I've noticed the "Re-review this revision" button on this BLP, but it seems that neither the "accept revision" nor the "unaccept revision" buttons are functioning properly. What could be causing this issue? — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Saqib, the most recent edit is marked as accepted by you, so I'm not sure where there is a glitch. Are you talking about that revision? If so you can't unaccept it, though you could of course revert it. Pending changes only involves edits by IPs and new editors, that particular edit was made by an editor whose edits are automatically accepted.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts
I was looking through the discussion at Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_211 and wondered if I could troubled you with some questions about your comment there 'm not against adding relevant links to our sister projects at the end of articles, but at the top? I think the only time we should do that is where the Wikipedia article is a disambiguation page for a word that has a wiktionary definition. I think we're aligned on links at the bottom of articles, but I wanted to know if you had more to say about your suspicion of adding links at the top. An example that comes to mind is for public domain texts like Moby Dick. At the bottom of the page, it links to wikisource, saying the full text is available, but maybe that would be useful at the top instead? Basically, if someone is looking up the encyclopedia article on a book, I'd bet they're more likely than most to be interested in the full text (as opposed to say, photos on commons), and putting that first rather than the end makes it more accessible. Thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des 20:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Wugapodes, to quote the proposer at the top of that thread "encouraging readers to use and edit sister projects" that got a somewhat different response from me than your proposal of linking to full text. Full text in the scenario you mention is sensible - similar I'd argue to my example of dictionary definitions. I'm not against editing of other projects or even encouraging editors to go cross wiki, I have lots of edits to WikiTravel, Wikibooks and others because they come up in search. But I have a general dislike of template bombing, and I think there are more effective ways to recruit new editors than to smear big templates om articles. Have we ever recruited a new editor by adding such templates? I'm also a tad cautious about trying to divert editors from one project to another. Maybe there is scope for encouraging budding travel writers to go to WikiVoyage instead of here, but I'd be cautious even about that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yadava
hello, @WereSpielChequers. please add missing information in Yadava article.

Historians such as P. M. Chandorkar, using both literary and epigraphic sources has argued that the modern Ahirs should be identified with the Yadavas of the classical Sanskrit texts.

In the Mahabharata it is mentioned that when the Yadavas (though belonging to the Abhira group) abandoned Dvaraka and Gujarat after the death of Krishna and retreated northwards under Arjuna's leadership, they were attacked and broken up by the rude Abhiras of Rajputana. They were also mentioned as warriors in support of Duryodhana and Kauravas and in the Mahabharata, Abhira, Gopa, Gopal and Yadavas are all synonyms. They defeated the hero of the Kurukshetra War (Arjuna), and spared him when he disclosed the identity of the members of the family of Krishna. 2409:4085:9C83:4CC8:0:0:8109:D02 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, would you mind raising this as a new section at the bottom of Talk:Yadava? That way all discussion about changing that article will take place on the talkpage of that article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  05:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail Suggestion
✅

You've got mail

Help with disruptive editor
Hello WereSpielChequers. I am writing to you in regards to the disruptive editing from User:174.100.101.201. This user and I recently engaged in an edit war over these two pages, as this user kept removing what I felt was basic electoral statistics that was no different from information stated in the preceding paragraphs and sentences. His only response that was repeated over and over was the subjective statement that this was "unnecessary info."

However, my bigger concern, and my reason for writing to you, is this user's history of repeatedly deleting sections worth of information with only vague and subjective summary statements, such as "removed unnecessary info." Which can be seen here, here, and in the above two links. Additionally, this user has a habit of making edits that do more than what the (vague) edit statement says, such as this page where two entire sections are removed under the statement of "shortened names." Furthermore, User:GatewayPolitics also experienced issues with this user on this page, with a rather petty back and forth over User:174.100.101.201's obsession with changing formatting, which User:GatewayPolitics noted did not align with wikipedia formatting standards anyway. Both User:GatewayPolitics and I, attempted to address our issues with them directly, however, they refuse to respond.

User:174.100.101.201 has a history of petty and vindictive behavior based off of vague and subjective edit summaries that proves to be disruptive to the editors on these electoral pages trying to develop analysis about electoral trends and statistics. It is frustrating when our edits are at risk of being immediately and reoccurringly undone on the whims of user that refuses to engage with us directly. GigachadGigachad (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is quite frustrating. We have brought our concerns to the user's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be working. GatewayPolitics (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am also of the belief that this user is a continuation of this: Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach/Archive.
 * That user and many of his later accounts were banned with much of the same types of edit histories as this current user. GigachadGigachad (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, It is a bit late where I am, and I'm about to logoff. But can I suggest you take this up on the talkpages such as Talk:2008 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania? From the edit summaries the IP does seem to be arguing that these places have few voters. I haven't checked numbers, but a talkpage thread is more likely to be noticed by others interested in the topic, and discussing what could be a content dispute on the article talkpage helps focus discussion on the article rather than the editor. Hope that helps.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the possible Sockpuppetry, I've never got involved in sock hunting, but you might want to file your evidence at Sockpuppet investigations.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. GigachadGigachad (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

You've got mail Suggestion
You've got mail

You've got mail
 * Revdel done.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Mail
✅ ygm DH85868993 (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep em coming.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

RfA special report
Hello! I don't know if you've already seen it, but I've written a special report about WP:RFA2024 for the Signpost 's latest issue: I also included a quick mention to your own report about the admin pool's decline from last year, which made me interested in this topic to begin with.

I hope it's good enough! Oltrepier (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes very good. Thanks for the mention and for using the term Wikigeneration. I do have a small cavil about the headline though "Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?". My belief is that the problems of RFA aren't really for those of us who have passed an RFA; more for those who won't run or who delay their runs, but especially for the community. At some point we won't have enough admins to keep up with the needed deletions and blocks, and that would be a problem for the whole of Wikipedia, not just the admins.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @WereSpielChequers Yes, it definitely makes sense...
 * Thank you for the feedback! Oltrepier (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Appreciation
Hello! Thanks for the barnstar. One million was definetely a long process to get done over the years. I do intend on slowing things down and focusing on edits and articles that interest me more. Thanks for all you do on here! Best wishes! Red Director (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. If you fancy a random area that gets you to slow down a bit, I recommend WP:FAC, every time I go there and get involved in reviewing an article I find an interesting article on the queue for reviews, and because each needs multiple reviews it is fine to just say you have checked it against x or y FA criteria.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red Director is this weeks Editor of the Week. Buster Seven   Talk  (UTC) 14:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Buster, well deserved.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

TPA Removal
Hi WereSpielChequers, If you have time could you remove talk page access for User:Stonelam12? Thanks Nobody  ( talk ) 07:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, so far I'm only seeing two edits, both blatant spam and I agree with the block, but I'm not seeing the severe abuse or vandalism that would normally trigger WP:UTPROT. But if they come back abusive feel free to take it to Requests for page protection.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)