User talk:Thryduulf/archive24

Concern regarding Draft:EHTISHAM AHMAD

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thryduulf,

I was looking at draft that will be expiring soon and saw that it looks like you created this draft and are the only person who edited it. I think there was content oversighted and in the process of eliminating that, you recreated this page. I wanted to see if you got one of Firefly Bot's messages and, yes, you do. Hope all is well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't actually create this page, that was Ehtishamhow it's just an artefact of an edit conflict between myself and PhilKnight dealing with supressable content. From memory I was redacting the suppressible content and saved my version as Phil was deleting the whole page (or vice versa). Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of most-disliked YouTube videos on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Last-minute candidate

As we have fewer than fifteen hours left to the deadline for Committee elections, I hope you're thinking of listing your name there. It is strengthened when it has diverse perspectives. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: I am indeed strongly thinking about it. I wasn't intending to run this year, but with this few candidates that may change. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, Thryduulf. It's in all of our best interests to have a strong Committee. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Thryduulf‎. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Hello, I found your name on the talk page for template:undisclosed paid. I’m reaching out to see if you would be willing to work with me or participate in some discussions I’ve tried to start but have not yet received any input. I’ve been on the fence about participating but finally decided to see if I can help with pages that are flagged. I’ve been reading the many guidelines available and I’m sure I’m missing a lot but I feel confident enough to review articles and provide a jumping off point for discussions. Ive read that any user without a conflict of interest can remove flags under certain circumstances but I dont feel I have the authority (or maybe just confidence) to do that myself without making sure more experienced users agree. If you’re willing to help, here are probably the most straight forward ones to start with: Talk:Curiosity Stream, Talk:Sofinnova (note this one is just for removing the paid flag, the advertisement flag probably would need to be addressed separately), and Talk:Vionic (this one maybe should actually be deleted). Otherwise let me know if you think there might be someone else I should reach out to. Thank you in advance. WyldEys (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't currently a good process (that I am aware of) regarding this, so I think you're doing the best you can, and thank you for it. In terms of specifics, I will respond on the individual talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey thank you for the quick reply on this and for reviewing those. I really appreciate getting some input from someone! Sorry for my delay, works been crazy with the short holiday week. I'll see if there's anything more I can do based on your feedback. I may reach out if I have any questions. Do you have interest in doing this for more pages? If so, I'm open to any and all feedback to make the reviewing process easier. And thanks again for taking the time.WyldEys (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to help with things like this where I can. It shouldn't be just me though so all you talk page watchers should feel free to do your bit as well. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help. I have put together a review and/or suggested changes for 3 articles that just need to be reviewed by someone else and implemented if others agree: Talk:Sofinnova, Talk:Curiosity Stream, and Talk:Black Cube. The first 2 I have in sandboxes thinking that would be easier for someone to just copy and paste. Is this something you'd like to help with? Or can you recommend a good place to find others willing to help with this so its not just you? The Teahouse? Thanks again, WyldEys (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look at all these when I get chance (probably wont be for a couple of days) and have a think about where to get help. Relevant Wikiprojects are usually worth alerting, although getting a response is rather hit and miss. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I appreciate you responding and taking the time to review what I put together. I have been poking around and surprised that I havent yet found a discussion board or Wikiproject specifically for this. There are so many flags on pages for various reasons, some have been around for 5+ years. Looks like something is missing to facilitate the proper review and changes for these. In any case, thanks again and I'll check out Wikiprojects a little more. WyldEys (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick passerby note that WyldEys has been blocked as a sock of a UPE farm. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What a shame, as they were actually doing good work. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Thryduulf, I try to promote an idea: when somebody try to search smth. in Wikipedia, but uses a wrong letters (for ex. English when Russian needs), let Wikipedia proposes him right variants on right language. Sorry for using a wrong place for my proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Дмитрий1515 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Дмитрий1515: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what it is you are proposing. The talk page of a single editor is also the wrong place to make suggestions like this, the better place would likely be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) if you have something concrete to propose or Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) if your suggestion is not that developed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thank you, I've done it in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) in the end of. Tried to write more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Дмитрий1515 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

One of your ACE answers

I was reading your answers to candidate questions, and noticed a factual error that you might want to correct. You say at one point that MPants is blocked. Although technically true, it was a self-requested block, and your wording makes it sound like it was, instead, a sanction. I hope that you'll correct that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise that, I'll have a look and make a comment. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kim Seon-ho on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rfd relisted/Test cases

Template:Rfd relisted/Test cases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 left a message at 07:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ACE

People in glass houses should not throw stones. Please try to keep your personalised 'musings' out your edit summaries. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss as to how my comments are at all personalised? I was very intentionally not referring or alluding to any specific comment or commenter. I also do not understand why you think "people in glass houses should not throw stones" is relevant? I have not left comments on any candidate discussion pages other than my own, and have not left any comments similar to the type I describe. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't alluding to comments on any candidate discussion pages. But never mind, let's leave it at that, I wouldn't want to be accused of PA or incivility again ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

ACE 2021

Hi Thryduulf. Thank you for your courage to run in this year's ACE. This kind of scrutiny can sometimes be as challenging as an RfA - if not worse. Some candidates ran on a platform for changes in Arbcom. Now comes the cliff-hanger of waiting for the results. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

BKFIP

DSMN-IHSAGT (talk · contribs) - BKFIP. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please block. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you block User:Chicdat, who has decided for no good reason to force style, grammar and factual errors into an article, and to slander me on random talk pages. DSMN-IHSAGT (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Both blocked for edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:EHTISHAM AHMAD

Hello, Thryduulf. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "EHTISHAM AHMAD".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

London meetup

This has been marked as cancelled as I was the only confirmed attendee. Anyone can revert me if they still wish to go. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Einstein's blog

Related to your comment at VPPR: We have said for years that if Einstein had had a blog, then whatever he posted there (about physics) would be considered a reliable source. But I'm not sure whether The Community™ still believes that. It seems that there may be a sentiment that if Einstein posted on his blog, it could be reliable, but if Einstein posted exactly the same words in a "deprecated" source, then it would definitely not be a reliable source, even for a claim you could obviously rely on, like "Einstein once published an explanation of general relativity in The Daily Mail". I am curious whether you have seen similar comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've not seen anything like that which I can immediately think of, but it's been a while since I've been involved about reliable source discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are two comments along those lines. I take them as being representative of a school of thought, with (some?) editors believing this is already the normal/accepted practice, rather than someone wishing the policies were changed to support their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Thryduulf, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Apologies

This thread has closed and I noted a correct observation made by Lepricavark, I was being unnecessarily salty and passive aggressive at you, of course I knew you knew how to correctly use CSD's, the comment I made was me being unnecessarily salty and this is unbecoming of someone of my age, please do accept my apology. @Lepricavark, I’m sorry also for letting you down. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Admin protected redirect

Please could you convert the redirect that you are responsible for with the following content:

{{disambig}}

[[Steven Bartlett (businessman)]] (b.1992)  British-based businessman and entrepreneur

[[Steve Bartlett]] American politician (b.1947) 

[[Steven James Bartlett]]  (b.1945) American philosopher and psychologist

[[Stephen Bartlett Lakeman]] (1823 – 1900), adventurer and soldier

I would've messaged you at Talk:Steven Bartlett but I couldn't understand any of it (visible and at history). Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've replaced the redirect with a disambiguation page based on but not identical to your draft. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Janice Long

On 27 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Janice Long, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Thryduulf!

Happy New Year!

Thryduulf,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Thryduulf! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Thryduulf: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, Thryduulf!

Happy New Year!

Thryduulf,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Thryduulf!

Happy New Year!

Thryduulf,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 PDC World Darts Championship on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment on an observation of yours at WP:BN

Regarding The only reason I can think of why a former admin (who is not blocked or banned) would not be allowed to run at RFA would be if ArbCom had explicitly prevented it (I don't recall them ever having done so) there was such a case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Guanaco desysopped (amendment) in 2006 where someone was banned from running again but the restriction was dropped in 2014. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems I commented on the 2014 motion, so obviously I did know about it but had completely forgotten. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There have been a couple of others, including Alkivar (2007) and Archtransit (2008). But agreed it is rare. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Archtransit, check my block log. [1] Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That was my first month as an arbitrator. It was an interesting introduction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cannabis (drug) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

About my reply

Hello Thryduulf. I did reply to you in the thread where you had pinged me but I don't think you got my ping in the reply. It is in the edit history for review but, in truth, I regret having added that subsection and redacted it as the better alternative. I hope you are not upset that I did this after you had replied, but I ask that you pardon my error, in that regard, and allow the redaction to stand. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. I couldn't get past "TB" meaning "topic ban" and was confused as none of those have been brought for review to the new board. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirected pages at RFD

Like the argument you made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#Little Welnetham Priory, out of interest would you make the same argument about other types of pages such as templates or portals etc that have been redirected to a different template or portal etc that later end up at RFD? To use as an example if someone wanted {{Groton}} deleted that was a separate template from 2010 to 2020 until it was redirected by its author (me). If someone wanted the redirect deleted completely would they be expected to restore the template and send to TFD because they may be concerns that RFD isn't experienced with templates or would we say its OK. My belief would be it would be OK to delete if it was likely uncontroversial or at least unlikely to survive TFD but if it was thought it needed a full TFD then it could be sent there. On a related note, with articles (and other pages) that are duplicates but the title is not implausible (or recently enough created) for A10/R3 presumably it would be OK to discuss them at RFD especially if no content from the duplicate was merged. On that note I'd consider making A10 into a G criteria to cover duplicate pages in any namespace including templates like the recently repealed T3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

RfD is about discussing redirects. If pages have been converted from some other type of content then RfD should only be used to nominate them for deletion in two circumstances:

1. They were converted to a redirect following a consensus that the page should not exist as that other type of content.
2. They would be speedily deletable if reverted to that other type of content.

In all other situations the page should be reverted to the pre-redirect status and nominated at the relevant XfD.

Regarding A10/T3, one of the reasons T3 was deprecated was that duplicates should not, in most cases, be speedily deleted (and when they should they were mostly covered by some other criterion) so recreating it as a T criterion seems unlikely to gain consensus. Before it could gain consensus as a G criterion you would need to demonstrate that it meets all the requirements of WP:NEWCSD - in this case points 2 and 3 would be particularly relevant and my initial thoughts are that it is unlikely you could. Particularly I don't think you would get consensus that all the pages in namespaces like Wikipedia and Help that could be deleted using this criterion should be deleted.

Other things to consider are include

• {{R from merge}} redirects are routinely kept because of the need for attribution and that we should avoid breaking incoming links unnecessarily
• Template redirects are also often kept because we should avoid breaking old revisions of pages unnecessarily. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding RFD and duplicates (as opposed to pages redirected for other reasons) if an article or other pages is created as a duplicate and then redirected and later someone thinks the redirect should be deleted the surely we wouldn't restore the duplicate at RFD and then send to AFD/TFD as there wouldn't be any content other than the title to delete.
• Regarding A10 and a general criteria, I'd point out that the other criteria such as G10 and G5 cover pages outside the mainspace such as templates, that is to say an attack template or a template created by a banned user can also be deleted so there doesn't seem a reason why that can't apply to duplicates. Notice that A10 is a substitute for R3 when the article if it had have been created as a redirect would have been deletable as a redirect and that R3 applies to such redirects in any namespace. If someone for example created Sufolk, county in England with "Suffolk is a county in England, its capital is Ipswich". This would be deletable under A10 since the title is implausible and it doesn't contain any mergable content not in Suffolk and if someone created Sufolk, county in England as a redirect it would be deletable under R3. If someone created {{Sufolk, county in England}} as a redirect to {{Suffolk}} it would be deletable under R3 but yet if someone created {{Sufolk, county in England}} it wouldn't be deletable and someone could get around R3, that doesn't make sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As I said, if the only content prior to redirection was speedily deletable then it is correct to discuss the redirect at RfD. If the content was not speedily deletable then it should be reverted to and discussed at the appropriate venue if it has not already been discussed.
  • The difference with G10 is that there is consensus that all the pages that it could be used to speedily delete should be speedily deleted - i.e. attack pages should be speedily deleted regardless of what namespace they are in. There is not a consensus that duplicate pages in all namespaces should be deleted, let alone speedily deleted. It may not make sense to you, but it is perfectly clear: if a page does not meet a speedy deletion criterion then it may not be speedily deleted, regardless of why it does not meet a criterion. Deletions on Wikipedia only happen when there is a consensus that the page should be deleted, CSD is a limited set of circumstances in which that consensus does not need to be to be determined by a discussion about the individual page because there is a consensus that any such discussion would always arrive at a consensus to delete. CSD is the exception not the rule. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Questionable redirects

Hello. I think those redirects are quite questionable (too vague and broad). What do you think? Veverve (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve I haven't got time to look at them properly, and likely wont for a few days. If you think they should be deleted or retargetted, nominate them at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gallican on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queen Latifah on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSX milepost prefixes

Hello, Thryduulf. I was doing come cleanup of AfD's that were closed as "Merge" but the merge has not yet been performed and came across this discussion. I looked into performing the merge but could not find any references that would justify saving the content in the merged-from article. As your !vote indicated, this should probably be deleted. I do not think that this is worth submitting to DRV since Natg 19's close was technically correct. Overturning the close and extending the discussion would be needless beuro, in my opinion. I am asking you to therefore simply delete CSX milepost prefixes as the ultimate outcome of the AfD discussion. I believe this would be an uncontroversial action that would not carry any involved implications. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, my deleting that article would be an unquestionably WP:INVOLVED action and thus controversial. Indeed anybody deleting the article without a new discussion (unless one of the WP:CSD criteria applicable after a consensus not to delete are met) would be contrary to the deletion policy and extremely controversial. If you believe the last discussion was closed correctly but there is information available that was not considered in the discussion that would have lead to a different outcome if it had been, then you should start a new AfD, pinging the participants of the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To re-start discussion after such a short time with no new information would be so excessively bureaucratic that I decline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

In which case your only option is to leave things for someone else. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously. It pains me, however, that admins have become so fearful that the plain meaning of WP:INVOLVED has become forgotten: In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is that the action you propose is directly contrary to the deletion policy so it is not something that would be done by "any reasonable administrator" regardless of involvement. Actioning the result of a contested XfD is also never going to be a "straightforward case". Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kids See Ghosts (album) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Steven Bartlett

Hi, can you remove the protection for Steven Bartlett? I guess it was protected to keep it as a redirect? But now as a DAB page, it ought to be able to be edited (without having to ask an admin to make the edits for you, as I see was done in December). Thanks. Levivich 15:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

While I don't have a strong issue with trying unprotection, Seraphimblade is really the protecting admin here so I'd rather hear their views before taking any action. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's at least worth a try, and hopefully the disruption will have died down by now, so Levivich, I've unprotected it. I have it on watch, so we'll see how that goes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your quick responses! Levivich 17:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Piano Quintet (Schumann) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

ARCA

You stated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 121#Statement by Thryduulf about consensus for parishes but as was noted over 96% of them already exist and there's a global consensus at WP:GEOLAND that they should exist and most other countries in the world appear to have 100% coverage of their lowest level administrative units. In response to you're comment of "I'm having a hard time understanding why this appeal is being considered?" does this comment satisfy that? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why you are bringing this up here and now, but "Coverage" and "stand-alone articles" are not the same thing, and 96% existing is irrelevant to whether there is consensus that 100% should exist, and neither are at all relevant to whether or not you complied with the restrictions imposed last year. As for the comment by BDD, that was not particularly relevant to my comments at the time and nothing has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I was just asking because I think its something that needs discussing because you're comment about a positive consensus needed doesn't seem appropriate. I'm not sure why we would need a positive consensus to treat the remaining <4% in the same way as the >96% and as most other such units everywhere else in the world? Anyway do you agree with the restriction modifications last month? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes

Modussiccandi

BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Testing the CSS

Hi, Thryduulf, thanks for your post on VPR; it'll definitely be helpful to centralize discussion. If you'd like to test out the proposed changes, you can do so with the following: first, copy and paste the contents of User:Writ Keeper/testPdfIcon.css to the end of your common.css page. Then, if you go to my sandbox, you should see each link there with an assortment of different options: "current" will have the current icon with no changes, "old" will have the old icon (to illustrate the problem exists with the old icon as well), "test" will have the new icon with the fix applied, and "testold" will have the old icon with fix applied, for completeness. Let me know if this is something you want to test, but still have questions. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper thanks for that. I'll give that a go tomorrow when I'm more awake. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

for your recent interventions on my behalf at WP:Editing restrictions. You didn't have to, but did anyway. These small kindnesses are remembered long after the sizable ill intentions of others are forgot. Such is the power of good over evil. Huggums537 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

semicolon

Thanks for the info. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

BLARs at RfD

Hi, Thryduulf, I was hoping to have a casual conversation regarding our perspectives on how redirects resulting from past BLARs are handled at RfD. Once I get a better handle on things, I will join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#BLARs_at_RfD and hope you will as well. You stated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_4#Erin_Sheehan that deletion of past BLARs at RfD is contrary to policy. Can you point me to the appropriate policy text that leads you to this conclusion? I am unaware of any specific guidance on this issue, and if not already explicitly stated somewhere, there should be a guideline or at least an essay describing how deletion policy applies to this recurring issue.

Tavix's position is pretty much a WP:NOTBURO argument, that if a discussion at RfD has reached consensus to delete a page, that is sufficient to delete the page with all of its history, and the discussion venue is irrelevant (RfD is after all one of WP's deletion discussion venues). While I see some wisdom in that, I also see procedural problems. As you have noticed, like you my default position is that redirects resulting from bold BLARs brought to RfD should be restored to the most recent version of the article for consideration at AfD, no matter how long ago the BLAR occurred, unless the article qualifies (or, even, would have qualified) for speedy deletion. As I state on my user page, it has always seemed to me to be a procedural loophole that someone could boldly BLAR an article without giving much thought to whether the redirect target is suitable, with the redirect then nominated for RfD, and perhaps without anyone at RfD realizing and acknowledging there is article content in the history, the participants decide to delete the page because it is a bad redirect. Now, in that case, the outcome is similar to an expired PROD (which in such a case is the procedure the user performing the BLAR should have pursued instead), given that it results in the article being deleted with no discussion and little scrutiny. So, if past BLARs are deleted at RfD, it seems to me they must be considered a WP:Soft deletion and be WP:REFUNDable upon request. However, there are problems with this as well. If an article was PRODed, dePRODED, and then BLARed, in that case the BLAR would essentially equate to an impermissible second PROD, and the article should go (and should have gone) to AfD instead. Thus deleting past BLARs at RfD still requires scrutiny to the page history, scrutiny which only a small minority of those at RfD regularly give to the redirects under consideration, making it a poor venue for dealing with pages that used to be articles. Also, as is the case with any soft deletion, sometimes soft deleted pages are overwritten with new content (as happened in this case), and then there is no way to know there used to be an article at the page (is there a template for noting past deleted history on current talk pages?).

But, returning to Tavix's perspective, strict adherence to our point of view often results in temporary restoration of articles that blatantly have no hope of surviving an AfD discussion and undoubtedly will either be deleted or redirected, and if there is an appropriate redirect target, identifying that is within RfD's purview (but, then still without prejudice against reverting the original bold BLAR, which ideally should be explicitly noted in the close). For instance, Tamzin seems to take a more pragmatic position, taking each BLAR on a case by case basis and supporting deletion at Rfd if there is no question it will not survive a discussion at Afd. So what is needed is a clear set of criteria for how to handle past BLARs that arrive at RfD. Otherwise, the status quo is that the outcome of each individual RfD depends on who participates in the RfD and whether someone has noticed that the redirect used to be an article. That seems like a poor way to operate. As with anything else here, much better to reach consensus on conventions for how to handle a general case, then apply it consistently and uniformly (similarly, like deciding what is meant by 'implausible typo'). I look forward to your perspective! Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6 thanks for this note. I haven't had time to properly read it (or do much of anything on Wikipedia) yet but I will get to it as soon as I can. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yevhen Makarenkothe same, as Yevhen Konoplyanka etc

Dear Thryduulf, obviously, this "redirection" is a pure mess. I didn't noticed it (I wanted to make redirection from "Yevhen Makarenko" and don't know how created such thing). If possibly immediatly to remove it, I'll be very grateful. Thank you for noticing it!--Noel baran (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks--Noel baran (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Screenshots of Wikipedia

I think the purpose of the "|logo=" parameter is different than the way it was being described. Setting the value to "no" merely suppresses the WMF logo in the licensing description. So I removed what you wrote. Please let me know if I was mistaken. Cheers. Schierbecker (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You are correct about what the logo parameter does, but incorrect to remove all mention of it from the instructions. If the screenshot includes the logo then the parameter must be set to yes, if the logo is not present it should be set to no. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm don't think I made myself understandable. Check the template documentation on Commons. There is only one small change to the display of the template when "logo" is set to yes, and it is completely cosmetic. Schierbecker (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything cosmetic about the note that the license of the logo is different to that of the rest of the image - indeed it's rather important. It might not be categorised, but that's not relevant to what the license is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please read the documentation again, carefully? What you think it does is not what it does. (Sorry if I seem short. Typing on mobile.) Schierbecker (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so it currently only displays a logo or not (and I am extremely surprised at this) but the existence of the parameter allows for future easy categorisation, license display, etc. While the parameter exists I'm seeing absolutely no benefit to your changes, only downsides for the future if someone does decide to do something useful with the parameter. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to change the purpose of that parameter? That template is used on over 8000 files. Every one of those would have to be checked manually after making such a disruptive change. Schierbecker (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

For WP:TPWs, this is c:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot and the difference in its behaviour when |logo=no is specified or not. This is documented as Use 'no' to suppress the Wikimedia logo (if the screenshot does not contain any Wikimedia ones), the implication being that this refers to the presence or absence of e.g. the Wikipedia puzzleball in the screenshot concerned. The parameter is passed through to c:Template:Wikimedia-screenshot/layout, and when specified, the markup <br>[[File:Wikimedia-logo black.svg|link=|80px|Copyrighted by Wikimedia]] is suppressed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cithara on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hazel Henderson RD

I nominated Hazel Henderson for RD. The article appeared ready to post before the nomination was archived. User:PFHLai said to ask someone to take a look at the article as a review before it could be posted. Could you take a look to see if everything is in the clear? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley sorry, I've only just seen this. Hopefully someone else was able to help before it became stale. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it made it to the front page. Best, Thriley (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Editing newsletter 2022 – #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
Wishing Thryduulf a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Administrator changes

Tamzin

Barek • Darkwind • Geometry guy • ProcseeBot • RoyBoy • Sean Whitton • Valereee • Visorstuff • WAvegetarian

Sn0wflake → VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy Belated Adminship Anniversary!

Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 11:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Turkish language on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Thryduulf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nick Levine (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Question re: set index page vs. disambiguation page

Hi. Could you please take a look at the disambiguation page Bibi Khanum? Should it technically exist as a set index page instead? (It was created following a recent AfD discussion where a non-notable, unsourced, and most likely misnamed biography was deleted, after which there was confusion and debate about where exactly "Bibi Khanum" should point to, which in itself made it clear that clarification was needed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle you're asking the wrong person unfortunately. The people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation are probably the most likely to know how best to deal with a situation like this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Tone

Your comments at WT:N are becoming rather personal and inflammatory. Please tone it down a bit, or take a breather. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes

AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl

Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue

Bureaucrat changes

Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrative units

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 114#Statement by Thryduulf (re Crouch, Swale) you were talking about parishes v settlements. As you can see at the later RFC there was consensus that if settlement and parish have the same name they should be dealt with in a single article. Regarding the GEOLAND point made by User:SoWhy yes the likes of administrative divisions will pass GEOLAND, GEOLAND gives "informal regions of a state" as an example of places without legal recognition. Think of Merseyside and Humberside as examples, if Wikipedia had have existed 100 years ago these would likely have fallen as places without legal recognition but when these became counties in 1974 they would have fallen as legally recognized and anyway its quite obvious that just like species they are inherently notable. Cleveland (county) was split from Cleveland, Yorkshire so sometimes the legally recognized place has a separate article to the informal region.

With respect to settlements v parishes there was as noted a consensus not to split those with the same name but for higher units this is sometimes controversial, see Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements. Hatfield Peverel deals with both the BUASD, BUA and parish which as you can see cover different areas and have different populations. Some editors will think that all 3 things should have separate articles due to being different, others will think its ridiculous to have 3 articles for places with the same name for a 4th order division.

If you want an example of a settlement v district that has been debated over the years see Talk:Middlesbrough, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 19#Article for both Borough and town? and Talk:Middlesbrough Council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barbie (media franchise) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taylor Swift on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes

DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720

Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass RfD Nomination

Hi there. Just looking for your help as I want to make a multiple RfD nomination (74 redirects) and am a bit confused as to the best way to do it. I saw something you wrote 7 years ago about requesting help. I haven't ever nominated at RfD before, and never did a multiple nomination of anything anywhere, so I wonder if I could beg some indulgence for a a bit of help. I have written out my nomination text in my sandbox here [2], and using Twinkle for creating the first nomination is easy. What do I then need to do (or where do I go) to request help with adding the others? Or can I copy and paste a subst to a lot of pages myself? Thanks for any advice you can give. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The easiest way to tag all the redirect pages is to make a list of all but the first one (which you should do manually yourself) and ask someone with AWB access to tag them for you with {{subst:rfd|Bus garages in London|content= at the the top of the page and }} at the end of it. You could do this all manually yourself if you want using copy and paste but for 74 it's much easier to get someone who can use AWB to do it! If you choose to do it manually I'd suggest the following process: tag the first one, create the nomination (noting there that you will tag the others shortly), tag the others. If you choose to ask someone with AWB access I'd suggest to tag the first redirect manually then create the nomination, noting in your nomination statement that you will ask at AWBREQ for all the redirects to be tagged. Once you've made the AWB request you can edit your nomination to link to that if you wish (but this is completely optional).

For the nomination at RfD, I'll edit your sandbox so you can just copy and paste (removing any nowikis) - I'll be assembling the list using regex find and replace in a text editor (it would take me ten times longer to explain how than to just do it!).

Regarding your nomination statement. This is good, my first inclination however would be to !vote to redirect them all to List of bus garages in London as that's going to be more useful than search results for readers - articles about any notable ones could be created over the redirect, so I recommend explicitly including your opinion about that option in your nomination statement (whether you agree with it or not).

Finally, and only semi-relatedly, do you think List of London bus garages would be a good redirect to List of bus garages in London? Is there a better target? Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this very helpful reply and the edits to my sandbox. I will indeed think about and update my nomination statement. Indeed, daunted by the task of making the RfD, I did initially try just redirecting one of these boldly to List of bus garages in London with edit summary explaining my reasoning, but that was reverted today [3] so even a consensus on that redirect at RfD would probably be helpful. All the same, I am of the opinion that a search should return the town article as much as the list as those articles may well have more substantive information on the garages than the list. It is also not a bad thing if the bus company pages are returned in search. I will add something along the lines of no one best target and try to avoid my inclination to verbosity ;)

Many thanks once again for this very helpful reply. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've prepared the nomination for you but I've made a couple of changes to the nomination

1. Barking bus garage has been made into a disambiguation page listing Barking bus garage (Arriva) and Barking bus garage (Stagecoach) so I've removed the disambig from your list and replaced it with the two disambiguated ones. I recommend leaving the disambig for now, if the redirects are deleted it will be speedily deletable under criterion G14, if the redirects are kept or retargetted then it will be a useful disambiguation page and should be kept.
2. I've removed Hounslow bus station from the list. As this is a bus station not a bus garage it should not be discussed as part of this bulk nomination (and most of your nomination statement is not relevant to it anyway). If you thin it should be deleted or retargetted then nominate it individually.

Note that Croydon bus garage and South Croydon bus garage target the relevant section of List of bus garages in London rather than a bus company. I've not removed them from the nomination, but you should consider removing them from this nomination and discussing them separately if you do, remember to remove them from the list in your sandbox and the list below).

Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

So thanks once again. Fair enough on Hounslow, and the dismabiguation. Croydon and South Croydon were redirected to the list by me (before I realised there were so many of them). A third bold redirect of mine was reverted. I think they all should be considered together. Also I neglected to answer your question about whether List of London bus garages would be a good redirect to List of bus garages in London. My thoughts are that the first title is probably better and nothing wrong with that as a redirect. I am not aware of any better target. Once again, many thanks for your help. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Fair enough on considering the Croydon ones in with the others - my comment was just a "you should actively choose to do or not do this" not "I recommend you do this". I've created List of London bus garages as a redirect, the titles can be easily swapped if anyone thinks it is better (I don't have an opinion). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

Hello, would you be willing to close the Redux of the Redux discussion section and the active RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather#Colour_Discussions? Noah^Talk 23:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah I'll take a look tomorrow if nobody has closed it before then as I'm not awake enough to do it now. Is it listed at WP:AN/RFC? Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not currently listed there. Noah^Talk 23:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Listing it there is not always the fastest way to get a discussion closed, but it is the most reliable way to get it closed by someone uninvolved and the best way to ensure there are no accusations of attempting to bias the result (this is general advice, I am not saying this is your intent now). Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah I've had a look but even after several readings I don't understand what was being proposed and how the two RfCs interact with each other (many of the comments in the first refer to what I understand the second to be about, so they are clearly linked somehow). I'm going to therefore decline to close as I cannot fairly assess comments I don't understand against relevant polices etc. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The first one was a color scale being proposed, where the discussion started in July and then fizzled. A person proposed on 3 September (probably should have been its own subsection for organization sake) that we revert to the legacy scale which is the second half of the discussion in that section. The second RfC is simply on the map background itself rather than any kind of dot color scale. Noah^Talk 14:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:ANRFC for you (as I recommended last night). I will not be closing this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Likely vandalism

Hi an IP editor seems to be randomly changing dates in articles about France. See Special:Contributions/2405:201:300F:610D:14E6:3B29:9C48:164C thanks Mccapra (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mccapra they don't appear to have edited since before your message here, but if they continue then WP:AIV is probably a better place to post. I may not be online much today. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)