User talk:Robertsky/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Robertsky. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Hey Robertsky! Look forward to you being my Wiki mentor.

I have been uploading some photos and editing a page and my photos go up for 48 hours and then get rejected.

I am managing a Band and have full permission from them and the photographer who took them to post, but it keeps getting flagged. --Mattyc612 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mattyc612 thank you for your contributions. There are several matters at hand, which I will go through in order:

1. Your status as a manager for the band. There the apparent conflict of interest here. It may factor into a perception that your edits and the photos are promotional in nature, therefore being reverted as such. For future edits, do follow the steps for disclosing the conflict of interest, and potentially use the appropriate {{Edit request}} banner on the talk page.
2. The copyright ownership of the photograph. Typically the copyright ownership of photograph taken in USA is assumed to be that of the photographer's. If there is an expressed permission given by the photographer to release the photograph as such or that it is stated in the contract of work (or similar) between your company that either it is a work for hire, or that the copyright ownership has been released to you/your company, it is best to email to the Volunteer Response Team on Commons on affirming that the photograph is being released under the public domain license.

– robertsky (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello sir, I have a Blog About movies review, so can i add my backlinks to the Wikipedia? --Vasupareek24 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not @Robertsky but @Vasupareek24 you should read WP:NOBLOGS. It clearly states that you cannot use Wikipedia for this purpose. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Vasupareek24, it would also be seen as spamming of external links, and a conflict of interest to do so. If your blog becomes an authoritative website in the future, it will be used naturally by other editors. – robertsky (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

hello mentor, how are you doing, i wanna ask some questions on wikipedia --Jarvis3345 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

hi @Jarvis3345 what're your questions? – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you blocked this account for 24 hours, but notified them of an indef block at their talk page. Thanks for your help by the way. Wikishovel (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel thanks for catching that. My brain is on flu meds at the moment. time to rest! – robertsky (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	This award is given in recognition to Robertsky for collecting at least 10 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky

I'd like to contest your decision to add Al Saud to a load of pages on Saudi royal princes. These names have been contested repeatedly over the years and the consensus has been generally to omit Al Saud. Furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME clearly favours the form without the extra Al Saud on the end... e.g. 118,000 hits vs. 30,000 for one example I looked at. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru noted. Will revert the close. – robertsky (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet, the example you gave is of a page that is not even listed among the seven that have been put forward for a potential move. The pages were moved multiple times over the years and there has been no solid consensus whatsoever, which has resulted in a mess that goes against WP:TITLECON. Keivan.f^Talk 18:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, eh let's keep the discussion on the talk page where the RM is. – robertsky (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Yo mate how can I add Tags labels to my page, also it seems that I have difficulties adding cites/References to my arguments could yo pls give me some tips about these stuffs --Kasra hp81 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kasra hp81, what kind of "Tags labels" are you asking about? As for adding citations and references, I have dropped a welcome template containing links to some tutorials, one of which is on adding references. – robertsky (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help, the tutorial is very useful.

Also about the "tags labels" I actually meant user boxes I didn't know the name back then,

Is it possible to add some of them to my page ? Kasra hp81 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kasra hp81, yes. The main page for userbox is at WP:UBX, and an non-exhaustive list of userboxes can be found here Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. On your user page, for example, if you want to declare that you like axolotls, you can simply paste the userbox title as a template into your userpage: {{User:Nabikunyoi/Userboxes/Axolotl}}. – robertsky (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that North Carolina is not listed as a locality that has a particular type of mineral. I have a reference that says it is found there, but the article was published in 1916. It is written by the State Geologist at the time. Is there a way to suggest an edit? I'm not sure if perhaps that locality was invalidated later. --Rokhugr (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rokhugr you can suggest an edit on the article's talk page with details of the change you want to make and also the details of the reference, i.e. document title, publication date, agency/person/etc writing it, etc. and add {{help me}} to it. I also have drop a welcome note on your talk page, linking some tutorials that you may be interested in, especially on how to write references on Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

experienced names ninos? --DE DE DE H49 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I wanna know how I can write a story about this new artist that out she has been independent artist I need help of making a bio or something like a story about this artist. --AngelCarmona1 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@AngelCarmona1 That's enthusiastic of you to write a biography about the person. Before you embark on writing a new article, do familiarise yourself with editing on Wikipedia in general first. I see that you have done a couple of edits already on some pages, I encourage you to continue to do so as with each edit, you will be more familiar with the processes and norms on Wikipedia. To that end, I have dropped a welcome message on your talk page full with links to tutorials.

For writing on any subject, you are recommended to find three independent, third-party, and reliable sources. It cannot be of database-like sources, like song listings or charts, etc. For artist, there is some guidance as to what can determine the person notable:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

You are also recommended to go through the Your first article page, and use the draft system to get reviews from other editors.

Hope this helps! – robertsky (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping with the redirect of The Mamba Mentality. For my future reference, what is the procedure for moving a draft to a name occupied by a redirect? Even if I edit the redirect, and blank it, do I have to nominate the page for a speedy delete before being able to move? Reagle (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Reagle, there is no point blanking the redirect as you are not the first author of the redirect typically. Either file a WP:CSD under the G6 criteria or request on WP:RM/TR, preferably the latter as pagemovers and some admins are quite active there.

Note that only admins have the rights to delete that redirect outright due to the edit history. Pagemovers would have done a page swap between the two pages instead. – robertsky (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky, I've joined in order to get my film listed. It was released in Irish cinemas last year, nationwide and will be released on Amazon Prime worldwide in March. I just submitted the page, how long would it take to be approved and be visible? --Lovelyhurlingpro (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lovelyhurlingpro There is no schedule for reviews to be completed. Currently, it may take up to 7 weeks for a draft to be reviewed. I have taken a look at your sandbox article. First, it lacks the necessary template to notify reviewers. I have taken the liberty to add the template. Secondly, as you have a conflict of interest, it is best that you make the COI/PAID disclosure accordingly as many editors are strict on the matter.

Taking a quick look at the article, there is still much work need to be done. The relevant notability guidelines can be read at WP:NFILM. Some new films articles for your reference YOLO (film), The American Society of Magical Negroes. You are currently lacking the following sections: Production and Reception sections. The Release section is without references, and does not carry further information, such as box office details. Reception section should have reviews from known movie critics/publications. Production section can be thin, but would be nice to have. – robertsky (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 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 MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I reviewed the wrong article. I got confused with a different law article. I speedy nominated my review. The nomination remains in the same spot. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 no worries – robertsky (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lixinsha Bridge, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi sir, Hope your doing good, can you please review this page Draft:Geethanjali Malli Vachindi Saishna96 (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Saishna96 it will be reviewed in due time, if not be me, by the other AfC reviewers. – robertsky (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool, Thanks for the response! I will be waiting.. Saishna96 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

how do you edit --Esfhsf (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esfhsf like how you edit here! On articles, just click on the Edit link at the top right side of the article. There is a welcome message on your talk page. In it there is a link to The Wikipedia Adventure. It is tutorial in guise of a game. Go through it to understand how you can contribute on Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meaningful Broadband, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaningful Broadband until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

		The Closer's Barnstar
		In recognition of your thoroughness and attention to Wikipedia's policies when closing the discussion on moving the Flour massacre article. This was an extremely contentious move discussion, with dozens of impassioned editors arguing about the necessity of moving the original article and debating the proper title to be used. Adding to the difficulty of this move discussion was the high level of attention that the discussion received off of Wikipedia. All told, Robertsky's thorough explanation in closing the discussion demonstrated clear reasoning as to 1) why the discussion among editors had coalesced around a consensus to move the article, and 2) why a move to Flour massacre was warranted at the time of the move even in the absence of a clear consensus on a target title. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky, I request that you reconsider your move of Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident. Many of the support !votes were brief and perfunctory, and above all I am very concerned by outside canvassing---a Twitter post that achieved over 570,000 views [37], as was noted in the move discussion (albeit, counterintuitively, as a reason to end the discussion) [38]

That tweet, from a user with 24,700 followers, stated as follows: The Wikipedia page for the Flour Massacre euphemistically calls it the “Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident”. This is straight up Holocaust denialism.

This tweet was posted at 6:25 pm March 1. It you examine the page view statistics for the talk page where the RM was underway [39], you can see that page views went from 193 on Feb. 29 to 2252 on March 1 and 3374 on March 2 and remained at high levels, coinciding with a surge of support !votes, as was noted in the closure request discussion [40]. The spike in talk page views subsided in the days subsequent to the canvassing on Twitter, most recently to 718 as of 3/7.

The replies to the tweet linked above actively discuss the article move discussion.

I believe the process was tainted by this outside canvassing and I request that you reconsider this action, and let the RM remain open for a meaningful additional period of time.

One other point that bears mentioning, which is somewhat obvious, is that you changed the title to a name that is completely non-neutral and is in breach of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:IMPARTIAL. Even if the "consensus" that you found was not tainted by canvassing, that alone would be sufficient not to use "massacre" in a Wikipedia title of an article on a current event in a contentious topic area. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:

While there is the tweet, it cannot possibly explain all of the page views on the talk page. During the course of the discussion, there is also a similar page views pattern on the article itself [41]. Given that there is a RM banner on the article as well, the traffic to the talk page can also be attributed from the RM banner. If there is canvassing going on, we would expect that much of the talk page traffic come from mobile devices/app, given that 80% of Twitter users access Twitter via mobile (widely cited on the net as early as 2015. not sure what's the recent numbers). However there are many more viewers to the talk page from desktop devices, and despite an obvious spike in mobile traffic on day 1 of the tweet, the traffic from desktop is still much higher. A more definitive assessment on whether the traffic came from the RM banner can be made if we have the clickstream data for March, but that would be another 3 weeks before the data is being produced.

As the talk page is under ECP, the effects of canvassing is lessened, or hopefully non-existent, as many of those coming through the tweet who would have voted in favour of the move would have been anon or newly-registered accounts. EC editors who have joined the discussion may have visited the article, then the talk page by the virtue of the event being in the news. And those who have simply put 'Support/oppose per X' without much explanation of why so have been discounted in the assessment as consensus isn't poll voting. I evaluated at the strengths of the arguments against policies and guidelines instead.

As for the use of 'massacre', while it is seen as non-neutral in some quarters, it is recognizable and widely use in reliable sources, especially as 'Flour massacre' for now, and this is afforded in WP:NPOVNAME, a section of WP:NPOV. I did consider 'killings' or 'disaster', but there's limited evidence of either of their recognition presented and have relatively lesser support as well. – robertsky (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide a rationale to explain your RM closure of Talk:Lusitania#Requested move 29 February 2024? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof, that province is the primary. but upon relooking at this, I will have this relisted. Thanks for reaching out. – robertsky (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Where could we find the page that need to be edited? Is it manual browsing? --Wenly99 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wenly99, for a start, yes. When you are more familiar with editing on Wikipedia, you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors as well where they receive requests to copyedit articles. Alternatively, you can monitor edit requests at Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Monitoring_new_requests. For a start, I have placed a welcome template with tutorials for you to get familiarised with the user interface and editing norms. – robertsky (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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 HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, 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 SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, 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 Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, 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 City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, 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 Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, 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 BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, 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 HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia: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)

Hi Robert, what do you see that is broken on [49]? I can't see the error. Best, CMD (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

your version has [restore this version] and a repeat of the infobox etc... likely a slip in copying a previous version in diff view? – robertsky (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I see it now. Likely as you say a mixup when trying to restore intermediate edits. Will get on it now. CMD (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you move the page to (dog breed) when only two comments supported that and three including the nomination supported appending dog? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

three comments of the four including Roman Spinner's (as a secondary support). – robertsky (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of SPH Media Trust.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate any feedback on this article: Chinese New Year customs in Singapore. Thank you in advance for your time! -Alexistang (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alexistang edited. thanks for the article. – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -Alexistang (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky could you explain why you !voted and relisted Talk:Baike.com#Requested move 29 February 2024 which is supervoting per WP:RMRELIST? Lightoil (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lightoil there was no firm comments on whether to support or oppose on the move when I was processing through RMC to close discussions in the backlog and relisted it so to give more time to others to respond to the discussion. At that point in time, I had no opinion on which way the discussion should be closed. When it hit the Elapsed section again, I decided to take a closer deeper look at the sources to see if it can substantiate what is essentially a WP:NAMECHANGE request. I didn't feel comfortable closing the discussion as it is and register it as an oppose instead, which other editors may respond to, and at least one other editor had done so. It didn't register to me that it would be seen as a supervote when I commented on the discussion. – robertsky (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay please be more careful and don't relist and vote in a move discussion again, thanks. Lightoil (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Robertsky - I can't find any reputable sources for this wiki page. Also, the subheader titles lack clarity. I could probably add their station logo and change their subheaders - or do you suggest I just move on? --Deirdre A. Lopian (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Deirdre A. Lopian there's one more option for you, if you have done the work of verifying if the article, feel free to remove the unsourced text. Do clearly state in your edit summary that you were unable to find sources for these statements. It will be the onus of the person reverting you to present sources for these unsourced statements. About the station logo, there's no harm in uploading the logo. Just remember to upload as a non-free file. – robertsky (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Im having trouble creating templates, how do i do? --Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tinkaer1991, see Help:Template#Writing templates for creating a template. If you have a specific template in mind and you have come across similar ones in other articles, use these existing templates as a base, copy them into your sandbox and modify from there. The setup can be, template under development: "User:Tinkaer1991/TemplateTest", and in your sandbox or draft, just tranclude {{User:Tinkaer1991/TemplateTest}} to verify that the tranclusion works as expected. Once your template is done, you can have it moved into the Template namespace. – robertsky (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we really going to use mapa-metro.com and belarusfeed.com (dead link) as evidence of strong RS to the point it is not "no consensus" but "not moved"? Mellk (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, are there any indications of these sources not being reliable ones? belarusfeed.com being dead does not mean that it cannot be used still, especially not when it has been archived. i.e. [61]. – robertsky (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned that if we were going purely by what name appears the most in sources, then in this case it would be "Moskovskaya" (another example [62]). The current title neither follows WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:BELARUSIANNAMES. Mellk (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the purpose of editing wikipedia ? --Rokokiropo (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know why What the Dead Men Say (album) was not moved? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 That's the consensus. To elaborate further, WP:RECENTISM for a start, a 4 year-old item vs a 60 year-old item (what's the long term significance of the book vs the album)?

Looking at the pageview data of both article (since you are basing your rationale to move on it), the book could still draw in a steady stream of pageviews (and even a 2x uplift for 2 years prior to the previous RM) after 60 years of its existence, can the album also draw in the same steady stream of pageviews? Was the uplift due to the book or some other factors? The difference in pageviews itself is not the only factor when evaluating for primary topic take over in general, but it generally does help in vacating the primary topic as it did in the early RM. I suggest that a delay renomination for about four to six months for the dust to settle in relation to searchability and reachability of either articles. By then with wikinav and the pageview tools, one would be able to tell if the steady stream of pageviews for the books was because it is the book that people are looking for or because it was for album, and they had limited choices and landed through the book to go to the album; or that the drop in daily traffic for the album has improved or reversed. – robertsky (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the request, but it should be Teatralna Metro Station (Sofia Metro). I apologize for the typo in my response, which I only noticed now. The city is Sofia. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter thanks for following up. – robertsky (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Does Talk:Ad Infinitum (band)#Requested move 9 March 2024 on Special:PermanentLink/1214526275 allow for the move of Ad Infinitum (metal band) even though there was no talk page notice on the later? I ask because you were the relisting admin.microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 02:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Immediate follow-up: I've done it and I want to clarify—I did it not because I assumed silence on a 20 minute-old talk page question meant approval (I hate when people do that on my talk page), instead I did it BOLDly because it seemed inline with policy and the overal consensus on the discussion would have leaned to do it. I also assume it could be undone as an undiscused move, of which I wouldn't have a problem. In doing the move, I left an {{old move}} template and my new question is is that propper, given the context of my above question. Thanks in advance for the guidance. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@MicrobiologyMarcus that's interesting. I always thought that such additions would have trigger the bot to add the necessary notifications on the corresponding article and talk pages. @Wbm1058 is this supposed to be the case for the RMCD bot or was there something that changed? – robertsky (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Since 15 November 2021‎ (v 7.67), the bot doesn't post notifications more than one week after the RM was listed, to mitigate potential edit conflicts with closes in progress; issue reported here. Since then, a newer enhancement made on 17 February 2024‎ (v 8.40) limits the bot to three recent edits in subject-space, to stop it from edit-warring over changes to sync modified subject page notices, but that won't stop the bot from re-posting notices after a closer has removed them. Some day I may make the bot even smarter regards to these; better cleanup and reporting/record-keeping after closed RMs still on my back burner. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 I see. Maybe an additional switch in the template on the talk page to force update the notifications if there's any significant changes like this case? I.e. |update=1 after the bot is done with the new notifications, it can reset/remove the parameter. – robertsky (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Heck no, I wouldn't want to further complicate the template by adding a new, obscure parameter to it. I might could change the limit from the original list date & time to the current listed date & time, which would be the date that the RM was relisted, if it was relisted. That would extend the window for posting notifications another week, which would be fine if the relisted RM were allowed to run for another full week. But that would open the possibility for edit conflicts with closers if the RM were closed during its relist week. Of course, the current algorithm has the potential for conflicts with "speedy" closes, but we shouldn't have very many of those, theoretically. I've already added two functions to the bot's framework that look into a page's edit history, to serve two different purposes; I suppose I could add a third function to serve this purpose, by reporting how many edits the bot has made to the page since the RM opened, and allow the bot to post notices as long as the bot had not previously edited the page since the RM opened. We're getting into an area of diminishing returns here, where to accommodate ever more unusual and infrequently occurring scenarios, I need to spend ever increasing amounts of time working on coding workarounds. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 Noted. I will try to remember to manually place the banners then if such a case happens again. – robertsky (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello I want to upload a new wikipedia page about myself, Lara Smith, CEO of listed Antimony Company and written several articles and given key note addresses on critical metals.

Please advise how to get started. --Larajt.smith005 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Larajt.smith005 If you are notable per WP:NBIO, someone else will write about you. I suggest reading through Wikipedia:Autobiography before embarking on this endeavour by yourself. As for writing other articles, you are welcome to write as long as there is no conflict of interest. I have dropped a bunch of links on your talk page which can guide you through your editing journey. – robertsky (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi how do i save as draft? --Minhuaty (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ther --Laxmi Rana (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

story · music · places

Thank you for helping Pollini to the Main page! - I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), and I listened to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a question, regarding talk pages of Classical music and Opera articles: Classical music has no article classes, such as "stub" (only GA and FA). The template "Vital article" doesn't exist, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That's because the WikiProject Classical music apparently does not do article assessment. You can however add its banner on the classical music related articles' talk pages if it is relevant, like what I just did at Talk:St John Passion structure. The new project banner shell design does not differentiate the article classes, giving it an appearance that the classical music project has done its (non-existing) assessment. – robertsky (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky,

I created an article for Farisha Ishak, a singer-songwriter who won the first season of the Final 1, and was signed to Hype Records. She then did hosting, acting, and advocacy work.

I created the article in January and it was quickly rejected. However, I made changes a few days later, but it has not been reviewed again since.

I cam across your username on the Wikiproject Singapore page, so I was hoping you may be able to help with getting the article reviewed?

Here is the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farisha_Ishak

If you have other tips or think another wikiproject page is better to ask for a review, please let me know.

Thank you!

Best, Anilorac207 2603:6080:5802:4B07:1D5E:1C2A:8927:EC46 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Mmamatlakala_bus_crash. It was my first time taking such an action, and I'll keep it in mind for the future. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn No worries. While it is out of process, the consensus is already building in the direction and thus may be closed early. However, if there's someone coming out to ask for the discussion to be reopened in the next few days, I may just have it reopened. – robertsky (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this request; generally, we should not be working back-to-front; if a bold move is contested what needs to happen is the move is reverted and an RM opened. Yes, things are made more complicated here by the existence of an already open RM, but that doesn't justify keeping the article at the new title after the move has been contested - per WP:RMUM, recent bold moves can be reverted at any time, and once reverted should not be reinstated.

If you aren't willing to revert the move, can you leave the request open so that it can be considered by other editors? BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal If the discussion is just a couple of days old, and there has yet to have a lively discussion, I would have closed the discussion procedurally and reverted the move, and leave it to whoever is interested to reopen a discussion for the article to be moved in the other direction. However, it has been 5 days with 35 participants. A revert at this point in time is disruptive to the discussion. – robertsky (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What can be done is revert the move and leave the RM open, with a note that a bold move was reverted. It's better than allowing the bold move to stand, and inevitably causing issues if the RM is closed as "no consensus" - which is what appears to be likely to happen. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A nocon at this stage reverts the article back to the original title. – robertsky (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi I wanted to add a new entry, I have the news article to cite (https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/nivin-paulys-malayalee-from-india-gets-a-release-date/article67975698.ece) but I don't know how to add "access-date, archive-date and archive-url" --Akashsanthosh00 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Y’all don’t need a page for Acta non verba? --Chasehilll (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have another one for you. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@ZLEA, well... it never ends, this wack-a-mole VPN/proxy hopper. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have written article for wikipedia and hopefully get it published. It has over 103 citations. Since you're an experienced editor. I want you to have look at at it Draft:Islam Mamedov

thank you in advance Harris Zaindi (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

How can I create an article in Uzbek? --Aziziydev (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aziziydev: There are different languages which Wikipedia supports as projects. This one that you are currently reading is for the English Wikipedia. While we welcome new articles here, the content should largely be in English. For articles written in other languages such as Uzbek, you are strongly encouraged to proceed to the relevant sister project, i.e. Uzbek Wikipedia and contribute there. Do note that each sister project has its own guidelines, policies, and community norms. As such, do direct your queries to the Wikipedia:Teahouse there where established editors may be able to answer your queries. – robertsky (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

How do I copyedit? --ZRE32 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Youth Coalition for Organ Donation, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Coalition for Organ Donation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Hello. A user contested the closure of this move request at WP:RM#TR. To quote the contester:

The discussion, besides being too close to not relist anyway, did not once acknowledge that the article isn't about the 2020 law, but about the concept of the law. The 2024 law is fine to be at a year-disambiguated title, but moving this article was simply inaccurate and unnecessary.

I contested it as WP:WRONGVENUE, but an explanation of the close would be helpful. NasssaNser 01:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@NasssaNser, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The discussion indicated that the article title is ambiguous, therefore a consensus to move.

@Kingsif, aside from the move discussion, responding to your comment directly, if it is the concept of the law, the 2020 article would have been restructured, i.e. removing much of the analysis/reactions sections (into another [new] article, maybe?), and as well as adding the new laws introduced in the 2024 law. There is an infographics in the 2024 article which would gel well into a concept article.

I am assuming that you would like to have a concept article at the base title? If so, I am with you on this, especially after processing the moves of the 2020 law article and related pages. It is set up as a set index page for expediency as I and other editors were processing through the page links. If there's no one else expanding in the next few weeks into a broad concept article, I am inclined to do so. – robertsky (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to NasssaNser for moving this, and robertsky for replying. The 2020 article was originally the concept article, hence I was confused by the move - but I'm in agreement with your notes about extra detail, of course the 2024 developments, etc, and how separate articles for the 2020 and 2024 legislation would be beneficial. For the purposes of preserving history, I thought (think) that moving the concept article to a specific title would be a bit unhelpful. The 1992 through 2003 history is probably not lengthy enough to warrant separate articles from the concept page. I wouldn't know where to have a discussion on the what content where, though. Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif let's see what I can do in the next few weeks. It may be end up be copying the bits and pieces from the various existing articles to form up the broad concept page. – robertsky (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Robertsky,

I saw your edit summary on an edit on this page. I was kind of taken aback. A year or so ago, an editor created over 100 draft pages regarding this Portal, I can safely say they were all deleted via CSD G13. Without some strong assurance that this Portal is going to be finished and all of these blank pages filled with articles, I don't think any admin, even the nice ones at WP:REFUND will want to take the considerable time to restore all of these mass-produced pages. I think it would be better for them to start from scratch to prove that this version of the Portal won't also be abandoned in a couple of months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I wasn't aware of the CSD and subsequent refund. Before moving the pages to the portal namespace per requested at RMTR, I did a cursory look at the recent editing history of the primary page and also found that it was filled up with content. I share your concerns on the potential abandonment of the portal. The editathon is scheduled for 18 May to 1 June, which is not too far off. I am willing to wait to see if there are editing activity on the portal pages post editathon for a couple of months. if there aren't much significant activities, maybe a MfD may be in order then. Let me know if you have any other ideas on how to deal with this. – robertsky (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Robertsky,

Oh, I didn't mean that you had done anything wrong. No, I'm more concerned that editors at this editathon will want to get all of these deleted "Draft:Portal African cinema/" pages restored. But they might not even have a list of the deleted pages and REFUND won't restore a page unless you have the exact page title. Of course, the page creator did receive Firefly Bot messages when these pages were up for CSD G13 deletion posted on their User talk page but I'm not sure if it is even the same editors who will want to restore these draft Portal pages. There were a few pages like this one that were not deleted as they contained content but most of these pages were blank or just had an Article Wizard-like template on the page.

Now that I think about it though, if they do want these pages restored, it won't involve requests at RM so much as at REFUND and the deleting admin's User talk page so you are likely not going to be involved. But it's good to hear about the fact that this editathon is coming up. I might reach out to the editor who posted at RM to see what their plans are. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just went back and reread your edit summary where you write "We need help with mass moving subpages" so maybe there were copies kept in User space and you will be involved. I need to think before I respond! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

how do i add photo from photo gallery --Cameronmcdonalds (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for posting RD articles. Would you please also give credits? - If you click on places: images of a flock of sheep that I met by chance on the 300th birthday of cantata Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, yeah. I was distracted by... lunch. – robertsky (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

no problem, and we even managed the same day ;) - thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Robertsky --Shivacruz (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shivacruz hello – robertsky (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia: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:

• 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

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)