Did you look at the article and in particular, that section of the infobox in question? Perhaps you might reconsider your close if you had not. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the discussion around Vanezi’s comments if that is what is being referred to here? But as far as I could see their condition (I.e., only supporting removing the mercenaries if Turkey was included unconditionally as a belligerent) was not met and so they appear to still be opposed. Otherwise I’m not sure what is being referred to.
Personally, as discussed in this past, I prefer keeping the infobox as simple as possible, but I was closing, not !voting. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why there wasn't consensus to move to Imjonseong (removing "Fortress")? There were 5 supports for that proposal (Myceteae, SnowFire, Toadspike, seefooddiet, and myself) versus 1 or 2 opposes (Amakuru; Ymblanter didn't comment on the alternative proposal), and the reasoning was based in policy. Malerisch (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was focusing on the consensus of the proposed move and hadn't noticed one had formed for an alternative. I think you're right so I've update the close. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor request
Hello. Thanks for your RfC closure [1]! It's so long that I thought no one was going to read it and close it.
The location in the article looks like that, but we don’t know it’s called Welinganwala. In that case it makes no sense to redirect. That’s my issue here.
All of these Sri Lankan “village” articles that Ser Nicolao created back in 2008-9 have the same issue: he went through GNS (or a similar database)making an article about every listing in it at a rate of hundreds in a day. He put a link to the Sri Lankan government website on each article but that clearly wasn’t the source used as there’s nothing on it about this. However, GNS is based on military or colonial-era maps from the 1940’s-60’s or earlier, and not very accurate, especially for whether something was populated or not. Location data was then added which was of even lower reliability.
Some of these places exist (and whenever I find they exist I usually leave them alone). Some exist but are duplicates (I normally just redirect those). Many just don’t exist as villages and it is senseless to keep them. FOARP (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
Re: Sulaiman Juma Al-Habsi's presence at the Olympics
Hi, per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulaiman Juma Al-Habsi, he was definitely at the Olympics and competed. Also, I do see Al-Habsi's Arabic name at those two links. See for example the transcript of the official report here: [2] "Al-Habsi, Sulaiman". I have gone through hundreds (thousands?) of athletics Olympedia bios and have yet to find one incorrectly claiming that someone competed in the Olympics. Can you please relay this at the AfD on my behalf? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the other sources (World Athletics, Tilastopaja) both source their information independently from Olympedia, so if it were really an error, it would have to be one that was shared by both official reports and two other independent bodies. --Habst (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sulaiman Al-Habsi is not at those links, other people with the same surname are (Mohammad Al-Habsi and Shanuna Al Habsi), which is why I'm questioning whether they're really there. I also am not really sure if those are independent sources to Olympedia - they're all referencing the same information ultimately, aren't they? It's not like they recorded this information themselves. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, yes, all three are run by athletics historians who compile information independently. That's why Tilastopaja frequently has additional or less non-Olympic results than World Athletics and they often have different romanizations of foreign names. There's no doubt from reliable sources (I haven't worked with Oman Daily or Al-Watan as much but speaking to the others) that Al-Habsi competed. Can you ping a native Arabic speaker to mediate if there are still doubts? --Habst (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly aren't attending these events and recording the results themselves, are they? If they are I would like to know where they learned the secret of time-travel from, since these databases were set up after the races they carry the statistics for. Inevitably their statistics will come from the same ultimate source.
I've asked the question on the AFD, if other people want to answer that question they can. FuzzyMagma has apparently already taken a look at the Arabic sourcing.
@FOARP, in World Athletics' case, they certainly do sometimes, and their records extend far before the invention of the Internet back to 1912. Their statistics certainly don't come from the same source because there are many cases where one has more results than another.
Because the result (deletion or redirection) in part depends on this fact ("If it can be verified that this subject participated, redirect, otherwise, delete"), can you please communicate this on the AfD? Pinging User:Let'srun who wrote this. --Habst (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure what exactly I'm supposed to say that isn't already apparent to everyone on that thread - that some of the sourcing says there a Sulaiman Al-Habsi attended and some of the other sourcing cited in the article does not list a Sulaiman Al-Habsi as having attended despite apparently listing all other attending Omani athletes. I think the real lesson here is: don't add sourcing that doesn't even include the name of the topic to the article, don't rely entirely on databases which may simply have reproduced the same error.
I also note that there are two different versions of the Arabic name of this athlete in the article - again, the question here is what even is the name of the athlete? How can we confirm they attended when even this doesn't appear clear? FOARP (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, the official Olympic report wasn't linked or mentioned in the AfD, can you please just link that and say that the official report states that Al-Habsi did compete in the Olympics, and we have yet to find even one source refuting this? --Habst (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to "refute" what primary sources say. We should ideally confirm them in secondary sources, and this is what's lacking.
Let's Run has been pinged in to this conversation already and can see everything you've written - no need for further action. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am thankful for your challenges and for @BeanieFan11's help citing contemporary news reports because they help make the encyclopedia better. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moustafa Abdel Naser, could you please remove "the Karel Pacák case" and leave a note because there was no indication there that Olympedia had any incorrect information on his profile? I'm not familiar with the other two cases. -Habst (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not removing that Habst, because if they don't know where or when he died (and they don't), then they don't know that he died in Germany and shouldn't be saying that they do know that. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. They do know he died in Germany though, just not when or the specific city. It's responsible of Olympedia to say that; it would be irresponsible to guess a year or city if they didn't know. This is somewhat common on Wikipedia; many articles in Category:Year of death missing only list a country of death but not a city or date, see for example Franc Frakelj. I'm just confused about what you think is the specific issue? --Habst (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that not credible? There are other cases like Franc Frakelj or William Fullerton (politician) where country of death is specified but not year or place. It's possible to know that someone has died in a country without knowing their city or year of death. If there was any WP:RS information that disagreed with Olympedia, I would agree that it was unreliable. But that isn't the case here. --Habst (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely does raise questions, particularly because of the most likely explanation of why they’re saying Germany: WW2. If this guy disappeared in to the concentration/labour camps, or was conscripted in to the German army, then we would likely have no idea of where or when he actually died, including whether it was in Germany. FOARP (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of your comment, and I even agree with much of what you wrote in the AfD. But the Karel Pacák case is not an example of "incorrect information" or even an appearance of incorrect information because those are all hypotheticals. In order for information to be incorrect, it has to be, well, demonstrated to be incorrect. That's why I think that example should be struck. --Habst (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how it works. For something to be "correct", it must first be plausible on its own grounds: saying that you know with high confidence that you know that someone died in Germany, when you don't know when or where they died, is not plausible. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a step back here, are you alleging that Olympedia is incorrect to have listed a country of death as Germany because a year and city of death was not also listed? It's perfectly plausible to know one but not the others; some scenarios could be that they were told that by a family member or found it in a listing of deaths. I just don't see how this is an example of getting something incorrect when there's no indication of that? --Habst (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First "told by a family member" is not high-confidence information. Secondly "a listing of deaths" would almost always say at least what year. FOARP (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Olympedia frequently did this, maybe I would raise an eyebrow, but you don't think it's possible that in this one case out of thousands, they could have known the country but not the date or city of death? There are lists of deaths that don't have dates attached for whatever reason. In general, it's possible to have one thing without having another thing even if they're usually paired together. --Habst (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
Remember to tag your edit summary with #JUN25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search.
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
I really agreed with what you said here (the third paragraph) about third-rail topics. I get that sense myself, though I usually do leave well alone. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caps
It was interesting reviewing the mess around your close of the New York City Subway RM from several years back. I had forgotten that's where we had encountered each other before. Then, as now, you waded into a serious discussion while disclaiming any understanding of why people cared about the positions they were so ardently promoting. That's the kind of thing that you should leave to people who do understand why people care. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways you can contribute, as they say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would counter that capitalisation, objectively something that most users do not notice and which does not create content, is similarly objectively not worth the effort presently being spent on it. People becoming over-committed to something, and entering a disruptive battleground state against people similarly over-committed to the opposite proposition, is hardly unique to capitalisation. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my view was is the exact opposite. If there is an issue you care greatly about, then that is exactly the issue that you should take a break from editing in. Without over-labouring the point, I would have hoped that recent events might have highlighted the wisdom of that approach. FOARP (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that's related, nor opposite, to what I was talking about, which was not about taking a break, but about wading in to settle an argument without understanding why people are arguing about things that you think are not important. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, you're "topic banned from (de)capitalization", and I would assume that should be read as "broadly construed", which includes further discussing the topic here. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on my talk page, you'll see that the specifically did not say "broadly construed", and the that discussion capitalization generically would be OK. But I'll leave you now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to me you have missed the point - that perhaps it is time to reflect on your own participation in move discussions at RUSUKR through the mirror of your comments at arbcom. At what point does your pushing these moves cease to be constructive debate and become bludgeoning? Perhaps this might put things into some perspective.[3]Cinderella157 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Personally, the next time I see an essentially-groundless petition like this, I intend to open a motion to close it. We can test then just how much people agree with this process. The idea that you just can't discuss something in a discussion about that thing is patently absurd and purest WP:BURO. FOARP (talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−4)
And I said Hm. Something like that might be a good check-and-balance for preventing frivolous RECALL petitions -- which obviously no one wants to see. We can't know how many people watching a petition aren't ready to sign, but don't believe it's actually frivolous and would support seeing the admin RRfA. Valereee (talk) 8:20 am, Today (UTC−4)
Do you think we could suggest a process by which anyone could add a motion to a recall petition? Maybe a motion is open for seven days and stops voting for that period. It could encourage recalls to be extremely well-thought out before being started. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure whether the best thing wouldn’t be just to do it and see how it turns out when it happens. The reason I’m saying this is that a particularly bad recall proposal would be the best advertisement for the necessity of it. In contrast when discussing in abstract people are more likely to say “why is this needed?”.
Additionally, when the argument for this is based on WP:NOTBURO then it should not be something that adds to the bureaucracy of the process.
Hi I thought i would ping you regarding this discussion as you have been involved in several AFDs regarding CDPs and was deeply involved in the failed RFC regarding GEOLAND. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to delete redirects just because they have a disambiguation in their title. There are over 120,000 redirects with disambiguators categorized as such, with probably many more uncategorized. In general, any article title can also be the title of a redirect, so I think that would extend to disambiguated article titles as well. --Habst (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
I'm writing to you in your capacity as an admin here who tends to be active in the European morning. In a recent RSN discussion, a user made this edit [[4]] . A link included in this edit, https://archive.ph/t2wxG, leads to a page which gave me a warning in Italian that stated the page had been blocked for containing images of child pornography. I suspect this may be a problem with Italy's national block list, as that is where I am, but obviously there is a potentially very big problem here. Who needs to deal with this and how? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure there is a problem the WP can fix here. The link is to an archived version of a newspaper article, just as Newslinger says it is. FOARP (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, as long as it is working correctly outside of Italy. I tried to check on a VPN but it gave me the same message, and I didn't want to check any further myself for obvious reasons.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn’t want to click on it either but it was the only actual way of actually checking. I suspect this is a result of bad actors using archive.ph meaning it gets added to a block-list. For future reference any admin can revdel material so that it can’t be seen. FOARP (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for checking it out, not a nice one to get dropped in your lap. Given who'd posted it, I was 99.99% sure there was no problem anyway, but I felt it needed looking at. Thanks for the explanation too. All the best.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if it hadn’t been someone I know by sight but just a vandal, I’d have probably just revdel’d it without clicking the link. FOARP (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Team medals and related issues
I am wondering if Olympic notability should have a special carve out saying competitors in the 1904 Olympics do not get presumed notability even for winning a medal. This was basically a competition between a bunch of teams from the United States, held as a side event to the St. Louis World's fair. One medal is called Norwegian because the winner did not get his US citizenship until the year after, but he was competing for a US based club. All pre-1920 Olympics are hard pushes to think many of the competitors were actually notable, but the 1904 Olympics is basically the biggest failure in this regards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is not until the 1912 Olympics you get anything approaching the modern system of athletes being on teams per country. The 1904 Olympics was the furthest from this, but other pre-1912 Olympics are clearly not athletes competing by country either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I know you keep up with AfDStats
FYI your "Delete/Redirect" !vote here somehow got coded as "merge", I guess because it's the last voteword that's bolded or because the script doesn't parse "/" correctly. JoelleJay (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Thanks for creating an article on Ollie Wride. If you don't mind, I'll be improving on the article over the course of the coming days using WP:NPOV and some more notable WP:CITE. I'll also work a little on WP:STRUCTURE.
On whether he is a synthwave musician, it might be more accurate to say he is an English singer-songwriter best known for his work with synthwave act FM-84. I'll cite accordingly when I get to it. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think we're knocking heads right now as we're both trying to edit the article at the same time. If you allow me to update sections and add more references first, then please do suggest or make edits after. I can be done in a day or two. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All done now for the time being. I have improved on the touring and album release/chart information. I couldn't find any information to suggest that the artist cancelled a proposed 2020 tour during the Covid Pandemic. The reference didn't mention that, so I removed that line, apologies. Please feel free to edit and thanks again for creating the article. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article said that he was planning to tour "and then came 2020", clearly implying that the COVID pandemic was the reason, but if you disagree, fine. Otherwise OK with your edits. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Saint, though I think this is as at least as much your win as mine! You originally proposed the move to the title that it eventually moved to, even if it took a while for people to come around to your point of view!
With 100% honesty, I think there will be another move or two before this finally settles, but for the next year I don't think this page needs to go anywhere. FOARP (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted
