This is an archive of past discussions with User:TarnishedPath. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I appreciated your comment about how to organize the sections in an RFC to promote discussion. I thought your approach is both realistic and helpful, and your explanation might encourage others to do the same. Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello TarnishedPath, 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 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
What the VLOP – findings of an outside auditor for "responsibilization" of Wikipedia. Plus, new EU Commissioners for tech policy, WLE 2024 winners, and a few other bits of news from the Wikipedia world.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 26th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 August 2024. At press time, over 94% of the world has legally fallen prey to the merry celebrations of "Christmas", and so shall you soon. It's been a quiet 4 months, and we hope to see you with way more new scripts next year. Happy holidays! Aaron Liu (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Very useful for changelist patrollers, DiffUndo, by Nardog, is this edition's featured script. Taking inspiration from WP:AutoWikiBrowser's double-click-to-undo feature, it adds an undo button to every line of every diff from "show changes", optimizing partial reverts with your favorite magic spell and nearly fulfilling m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Partial revert undo.
Miscellaneous
Doğu/Adiutor, a recent WP:Twinkle/WP:RedWarn-like userscript that follows modern WMF UI design, is now an extension. However, its sole maintainer has left the project, which still awaits WMF mw:code stewardship (among some audits) to be installed on your favorite WMF wikis.
DannyS712, our former chief editor, has ascended to MediaWiki and the greener purpley pastures of PHP with commits creating Special:NamespaceInfo and the __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__ magic word to exclude a template from Special:UnusedTemplates! I wonder if Wikipedia has a templaters' newsletter...
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Andrybak/Unsigned helper forks Anomie/unsignedhelper to add support for binary search, automatic edit summaries after generating the {{unsigned}} template, support for {{undated}}, and support for generating while syntax highlighting is on.
Polygnotus/Move+ updates BilledMammal's classic Move+ to add automattic watchlisting of all pages—except the target page(s)—changed while processing a move.
To inform someone that the redirect is intentional and not simply the result of a move.
But you are right, normally the nav box module should be updated for something like this. If I'm not mistaken, I originally looked at template "world topic" and realized that it wouldn't allow for a specific redirect based for a topic but does allow for a Disambiguate redirect based on specific country for individual nav box placement situations like this.
I will look again once I get to my laptop to verify that I am not misremembering how the template is set up.
The world topic template doesn't allow that change in the module. The work around to fix a dab link created by its placement in a topic seems to be the Disambiguation link option edit that I did or create a new for precise article that the Nav box will instead link to. RCSCott91 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Elliot Rodger extended protection request.
Another sockpuppet from Dominic Pringle just added the same disputed "author of the modern incel ideology" bullshit, but this time changed it to "central figure of the incel community". I have requested for extended protection because it is honestly getting frustrating with the number of sockpuppets getting created and adding unsourced shit. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Thanks for uploading File:Monica Smit.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Public Domain Day 2025, Women in Red hits 20% biography milestone, Spanish Wikipedia reaches two million articles, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
A user keeps reverting the change on Seung-Hui Cho from "mass murderer" to "South Korean man", claiming that it violates MOS:CRIMINAL. They said other pages about mass murderers like Elliot Rodger and Stephen Paddock should follow suit. What is your opinion on this? All these articles have had them known as mass murderers for years and now this editor is going to keep reverting without consensus. It seems rather disruptive, to be honest. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Shoot for the Stars the article passed two GA reviews on 24 May 2007 and 5 October 2007, presumably with that wording in the lead. It's a ridiculous argument that it violates MOS:CRIMINAL. Per the guideline When the person is primarily notable for a reason other than the crime, principles of due weight will usually suggest placing the criminal description later in the first paragraph or in a subsequent paragraph (e.g. Martha Stewart, Rolf Harris, Roman Polanski). If the crime is not a significant part of the person's notability (e.g. Tim Allen, convicted of a felony 16 years before his rise to fame), it may be undue to mention in the lead at all". In the case of Cho, their primary notability is the mass murders and it belongs in the first sentence of the lead per MOS:FIRSTBIO.
I was honestly just trying to de-escalate an interpersonal conflict I found myself in with another editor I didn't really know at all. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. I really didn't care much one way or the other as long as my efforts finding reliable sources were visible to the editors who explicitly asked for them. I didn't much appreciate "fulfilling a request" being referred to as "bludgeoning" just because there were a lot of bits expended in fulfillment; contextualized quotes from academic sources are going to run a little long. So I figured I'd demonstrate that what I was trying to do was just fulfil the requests of my interlocutors by fulfilling that one. It... didn't work well. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry about it too much. Sometimes we brush up against others. I've had some minor conflict with the same editor and it's not worth worrying about. They mean well, they are just a bit fast to judgement. TarnishedPathtalk12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
Do you think the article is good enough to nominate for GA? I have seen you with multiple GA articles in this area so I want to make sure things are ready. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's Café, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
On 23 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article StoneToss, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that X's rules were changed when StoneToss sought help from Elon Musk after an anti-fascist group published materials claiming to have revealed their identity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/StoneToss. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, StoneToss), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
your bulk revert of 19 recent edits by me and two other editors
Hi, I see that you reverted 19 recent edits on the Zionism page - eight of which were "failed verification" templates that I added over the last couple of days after thoroughly examining the references, another 8 - my edits not related to failed verification, and 3 more - completely unrelated edits made by other editors.
The explanation you provided for the revert was It is not clear that all of these claims of failed verification are correct, that is, you don't seem to have any specific evidence that any of those claims were in fact incorrect and you have just made a wholesale revert of those 8 well-researched edits, along with 11 totally unrelated ones, based on nothing but a hypothetical possibility that some of them may be incorrect.
I find this absolutely unreasonable and would appreciate it if you could self-revert this, and if you have any specific source-based objections to any of my failed verification claims, please revert just those specific edits and I'll be happy to discuss those edits in Talk. DancingOwl (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@DancingOwl, I reviewed one of the instances in which you placed failed verification and I disagreed that the source did in fact fail verification. On that basis I determined I couldn't trust the rest of your placements of failed verification. Please discuss it in the article talk. TarnishedPathtalk23:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@JesusisGreat7, per WP:GEOLAND[p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. I was able to determine it had a population with a quick search, however the article is at present lacking any details about it's population, E.g., numbers, is the population spread throughout the island or in one town, etc. You could improve the article by adding such details and supporting references which are WP:SECONDARY, reliable and WP:INDEPENDENT. TarnishedPathtalk09:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
DYK for Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter
The bouncing Wikipedia logo on your talk page is very annoying, and probably a violation of WP:SMI's "disrupt the MediaWiki interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable". Please consider removing it. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@Mitch Ames, I've moved it to the right and decreased the size. It's now in an area of the screen that doesn't contain any links. Is that sufficient to address your concerns? TarnishedPathtalk06:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dw31415 I got a bit of time because the meeting was moved. Bearing in my mind that my closing experience is limited, this is a very straight forward RFC to assess. There is clearly consensus against including Michelle.
On the question of removing the section completely, just because it didn't form part of the original RFC question, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider if consensus was formed for it. However, while it was discussed by some editors I don't see that there was sufficient dicussion by all RFC participants to form consensus on that question and would state that further discussion should occur. TarnishedPathtalk22:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
Hi there, and thank you for your help with NPP! I wanted to reach out because I noticed you nominated the article বাগিরঘাট উচ্চ বিদ্যালয় ও কলেজ for A7 speedy deletion. Although this article has now been deleted, I wanted to bring it to your attention as I reminder to do multiple checks before nominating an article for speedy deletion. In this case, the article was for an educational institution (Bagirghat High School and College), which does not qualify for A7. Additionally, another editor had already nominated the article for A7, which an administrator had declined; the reminder here is to make sure you check the page history before nominating an article for speedy deletion. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
Monica Smit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Re:WP:BER: It's still a bit experimental at this point. None of us really know whether it will help at PIA. None of us know what those working at AE would consider to be gaming that restriction. I don't personally know how the edit filter works, but I'm assuming it counts edits rather than looking at anything like amount of content; amount would tend to encourage padding to game and discourage the removal of unuseful content, while in theory numbers, even if gamed, could encourage things like making small helpful edits. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dw31415, given some of the fallacious arguments being used and the obvious misrepresentation of sources by some participants in that RFC, and particularly because it is a contentious topic area, I would have left it to an admin to close. Per WP:BADNAC:
A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations:
The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial.
Makes sense. Thanks. I took it up when the survey was unanimous so it didn’t seem like the close would be controversial. I’ll give my ask for help (on the closure page) a couple of days to sit. Maybe someone more experienced can see a path forward. Thanks for the advice. Dw31415 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at COVID-19 lab leak theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Just10A (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
You just violated 3RR, (yes, a reversion without using the "undo" button counts). Please follow policy and do not do so again. Just10A (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@Just10A, per WP:3RR "[a]n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". In future please desist from accusing editors of breaching policies which they haven't breached. Kind Regards, TarnishedPathtalk03:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
You did breach it, here are the diffs: [1], [2], and [3]. Just because you're not using the "undo" button does not make it not a revert. In the last diff you undid every edit between yours and @Alexpls. Just10A (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Please read WP:3RR again, specifically the part that states "more than three reverts". Please undo your last revert at Special:Diff/1280355614 in which you cast WP:ASPERSIONS in your edit summary. Please note that even if I had breached WP:3RR, which I didn't, that would not be a policy based reason for your to revert like you claim in your edit summary. Please refer to exceptions to edit warring at WP:3RR#Exemptions. TarnishedPathtalk03:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I had to find your response in the archives, but you are correct about the 3RR issue and I apologize for my misreading. That being said, you certainly don't fall into the "exemptions" like you said and the behavior would almost certainly be considered edit warring with 3 reverts of that nature on the same issue. However, you are correct about the violation of the bright-line rule, and that should be said for clarity. Just10A (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Evidence
You are conflating smoking-gun evidence with other kinds of evidence, like circumstantial. There is no definitive evidence that it originated in the markets either. Credible media reports lay this out. See the Vanity Fair article as an example.The underlying article is wildly slanted by any objective, reasonable standard and the reflexive resistance to correcting outdated information and biased language displays a lack of good faith. Wikipedia deserves better. Dancasun (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@Garudam, thankyou for drawing that to my attention. There was a blacklisted url in one of the discussions which stopped all of the discussions from being saved in the archive. TarnishedPathtalk23:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Idoghor Melody were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jarrad Searby and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, TarnishedPath!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Idoghor Melody (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monica Smit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Monica Smit was ordered to pay Victoria Police's legal bill of about A$250,000, despite winning a lawsuit against them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monica Smit. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Monica Smit), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Apologies, I shouldn't' have allowed myself to be sucked into an edit war and should have utilised noticeboards. It won't continue. TarnishedPathtalk00:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Of course it won't continue. The other editor is blocked indefinitely, and it seems to be an editor-specific problem. I'll probably unblock as there is no preventative need to keep this up, but I'd like to take perhaps half an hour to think about the whole situation again first, and I think it won't hurt if you do too before continuing to edit. I don't object to anyone unblocking faster than me in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
I've gone to dispute resolution for our edits @Canadian Indian Residential School Gravesites
I am too far behind on the conversation on that talk page to catch up, but would be willing to offer my two cents if you want me to comment on something in particular. Because of the formatting of that whole discussion, I just don't know for certain what everyone is talking about. Thanks for working on that article! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
All good. The editor has been trying to claim that I am in a one against many situation, that there are four editors for the addition of "and society" and only me against. Their numbers include you as one of the four when your last statement on it was that you didn't think it's necessary but that it's not a big deal for you. TarnishedPathtalk04:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
My approximate understanding of that phrase was that it was accurate and adequate either way, but the back and forth between you and Moxy makes me wonder if I should look into it more. Thanks for summarizing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Most of the back and forth between myself and moxy was a discussion about whether "white settler society" or "Euro-Canadian culture" was better, nothing to do with the addition of "and society" on the end of "Euro-Canadian culture". They made an edit which added that Canada was a settler society, to the prose and I'm happy with that as a compromise. The issue now is the other editor is continuing to push "and society" claiming that there 4 for it and 1 against when that is simply not the case. I'm not sure if they are misinterpreting what others write or if they're straight up gaslighting. TarnishedPathtalk04:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please relist the RM? There was only one participant, some of us missed this one (it was only listed once, for the seven days. There are so many RM's on de-capping), and, most importantly, this topic may be covered by MOS:GEOCAPS. Please read GEOCAPS and see if you agree that it may (emphasize "may") cover these articles about named and defined places on Earth which have been uppercased since 2013 with no complaint. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Since there are only two editors involved, the nominator Dicklyon and the supporter Cinderella157, will alert them to this request to see if they can argue, and are 100% sure, that MOS:GEOCAPS does not count. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Just a note that your ping didn't work because you got my name wrong and when you corrected it, the edit didn't have its own signature. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
The only reason I'm not following up on this (the closing, when only one week goes by and only one editor comments, that seems an automatic relist, especially when a large number of articles are nominated in the same RM) is that I'm not all-that familiar with the word or geographical feature craton. Unlike, importantly, the fact that MOS:GEOCAPS should cover the Earth's named tectonic plates which were inappropriately lowercased in a recent RM (North American Plate, for example, is unarguably a defined geographical place and used as a proper name and proper noun by major sources, even if some lowercased sources exist). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
When I closed I took into account WP:RMRELIST, In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. I have noted it is community practice to relist up to twice when there is no participation or when the outcome seems like it may be no consensus. However I don't think it's out of line to close after one relist when there has been some participation, however minimal. TarnishedPathtalk10:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
There was no relist on this RM, which is why I was questioning it. As I said, that's fine with me now, a relisting probably wouldn't change the entire outcome and might further waste editor's time, but it would have been nice if someone from the geo wikiproject would have chipped in about the solidness of defined cratons. The Wikiprojects, as a whole, have really been emptied and neglected, which is too bad after the "golden era of WikiProjects". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Although...individual craton titles, such as the predominance of North China Craton in the n-grams shows that some of them were wrongly listed in the RM and thus achieved a probable incorrect close. I haven't checked any others, but North China Craton bodes pretty badly for the accuracy of the RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Going back to the policy, If there is any inconsistency then we should presume the craton bit is not part of the proper name and not capitalise.
That said, I will endevour to notify wikiprojects more often, and have been doing so lately. As you say, not that it probably makes any difference, but who knows. TarnishedPathtalk12:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. According to those n-grams I listed above there were mistakes by Dicklyon in listing the RM entries which included titles which are obviously uppercased. And you made the mistake of thinking the RM had been relisted when it had not. Seems a candidate for a reopening and relisting, at least piecemeal after someone checks the n-grams of each item. If you relist I'll comment, as MOS:GEOCAPS seems to apply towards uppercasing in at least the North and South China items (I haven't checked any others to see if the pattern of misplaced nominations exists in more of them). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Randy, you know me, and you know darn well those were carefully considered, not mistakes. The difference between our articles on the North and South China cratons is that the former was capitalized in Wikipedia since 2007, and the latter only since 2013. If you turn off the smoothing in the n-grams you can see the spikes in capitalization in 2007 and 2013, respectively, as sources copied us. We can't fix that, but we can stop making it worse, by being more consistent in using our own style, instead of getting into capitalization positive feedback loops with our copiers, as you're been promoting. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:RMCIDC states: No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy and Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus. TarnishedPath, you have acted in the spirit and letter of the pertinent guidance. Craton is a class name and not inherently part of proper names, though we might capitalise it as if it were if this were always done per NCCAPS. My comment at the RM was based on a sample. I have now had a brief look at all the articles. This is not a particularly common term and it is also a "specialist" term, subject to WP:SSF and capitalised as a term of art - but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. As Randy should know, specificity is not a defining property of proper names. Looking at these as a group, several don't have ngrams, most appear to have a relatively small ngram sample set and there is significant fluctuation (noise). The ngrams presented are for the raw search term and do not exclude expected title case uses, such as headings and titles of citations. An allowance, often stated at 10%, needs to be made for such uses when considering ngrams and generally, results should be confirmed against google scholar and/or google books. It have looked at the south and north China cratons reasonably closely. The raw ngram data for the most recent year is 80% and 77% respectively. I also see in sources that the term is often given as an initialism. Since it is a style to capitalise an expanded term to introduce an initialism, such uses do not reasonably indicate necessary capitalisation since that is not our style per MOS:EXPABBR. Having looked at all of the titles, I only see one for which there might be an argument for capitalisation. However, the evidence across these articles indicates that it is not necessary to cap the class noun craton when used with a location name that is a proper name. Capitalisation on WP is essentially a statistical question and I would consider that article to be a statistical outlier and not treated as an exception from the group. Having said this, my view is that if Randy thinks there is a particular substantive case where craton should be capitalised as an exception to this RM, then perhaps he might propose an RM, without prejudice because of this RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, Dicklyon's misdirection is likely meant for you and not for me, as he and I have had this discussion before. Dick likes closers and editors to disregard percentages (and 80% uppercased is an uppercased proper name) by saying it's Wikipedia's fault that it's a proper name. How the proper name came to be is not our concern, just that it's a proper name now, in present time. You don't downcase something just because Wikipedia uppercases it, which is what Dick says above. There is no policy, guideline, or essay which says that we go the opposite way because of a guess. The entire RM is arguably broken because some of the nominated articles were wrongly nominated (I haven't checked further than the two listed above) and were then caught in a close (like catching mermaids in a fish net). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. As I mentioned, would be nice to have a geology editor commenting as I'm not sure what the craton status is considered within the field. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
@Mitch Ames No, unfortunately not. That bit is very manual. I went through and did all the first sentences, but reading each article to find all instances is a lot of effort. TarnishedPathtalk08:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
AWB will do most of the hard work, but at a minium, we'd need to:
enumerate all the link targets (so AWB can find articles that link to Xxxx craton)
@Frost has forked from BMs (see Polygnotus/Move+). Perhaps they'd be willing to implement a change per what you were asking about. I used their script for a while but I stopped because it adds pages to the watchlist, which I found undesirable. TarnishedPathtalk08:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Chambers is notable for two things; for being a distinguished academic in his field, and for being the subject of high-profile lese majeste prosecution in Thailand. The widespread coverage of him, and his case, demonstates both. BLP1 therefore does not apply.
All of this is all over the global news media, courtesy of all the usual WP:RS. I propose the removal of your tagging from the article, for the reasons given above; if you disagree, please reply to me here. — The Anome (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@The Anome, no worries. I've removed it. I would suggest adding sources which focus on them being a distinguished academic. When I performed searches I only found the Thai criminal charge. TarnishedPathtalk10:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
That's because being front-page news will blast all other coverage off the top of Internet searches. I'm doing more on this now. — The Anome (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@The Anome, I thought that was a possibility which is why I didn't move to draft.
Hi, could you perhaps take a look at the Russell Brand article and the changes I've proposed on the talk page? This is the second time I've tried to open this discussion there and it's just not happening. Maybe I've worded it all confusingly, I have a feeling the paragraphing is wrong. I trust your knowledge as an experienced editor. GhulamIslam (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
@GhulamIslam, the last time you made an edit to the article was 14th of February, which is almost 2 months ago. If you think there are edits that need to occur, be WP:BOLD. If you get reverted then ping the editors who revert you, into the discussion you've already started.
I moved your question for the candidate to the questions section. Each editor may only ask two questions and it's formalized, so it's best to keep specific questions in the section set aside for them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
@Nurg, the cause is some issue with the Move+ script.
Pinging @Frost, Move+ is cutting the "New Z" off the front of "New Zealand" when leaving comments in move discussions that the New Zealand project has been notified. See the above diff provided by Nurg. TarnishedPathtalk10:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Kia ora - just wanting to query your decision to relist this move request? It's got universal opposition and has already been relisted twice, having been open for more than a month. Seems like closing it at this point would be more than appropriate. Turnagra (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@Turnagra, my appologies. I missed that it had been relisted twice. My eyes only picked up that it had been relisted once. I've undone my relist and if I get time after work I'll close it. TarnishedPathtalk00:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gabe Seymour and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, TarnishedPath!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BuySomeApples (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if those two sources meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. It seems like he's mostly only notable as one of several young Australians included in news coverage about radicalization. There isn't anything that points to him being a notable public figure. At the very least he seems to be low profile, see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@BuySomeApples, that's an essay. The general standard is signficant coverage in multiple (i.e., two or more) reliable secondary sources which are independent from the subject. See Jarrad Searby an article I created on another individual in the same category who has barely more coverage than this individual. That article was on WP:DYK. TarnishedPathtalk04:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Tbh, I don't personally think the sources are enough but you're welcome to resubmit it for a second opinion. This isn't a topic I edit much and I won't pretend to be the arbiter of notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@BuySomeApples all good mate. An argument could be made that both the sources above are the same (both ABC Australia) and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to watch a 45+ minute current affairs video. I'll wait until there is some more reporting, which shouldn't take long given the nature of these people. TarnishedPathtalk06:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Zagreb
Hi, I created this page, because in the City of Zagreb exists three churches with this name in different neighbourhoods, so that is the reason to exist disambiguation page if anyone wants to find them. Can you explain me, why you think that this page does not need to exist? --Ehrlich91 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I modified the disambiguation page to be a redirect because only one of the churches has a Wikipedia page. We only need disambiguation pages when we have more than 1 extant Wikipedia articles with the similar name, otherwise we're making our readers use more mouse clicks than if we had a redirect to the one article that actually exists.
I believe you are inappropriately applying ARBECR to Talk:Zionism and prematurely shutting down edits to factual inaccuracies on the page.
We can suggest edits for those with edit power, yet you are summarily deleting these requests before a serious editor can review. 206.55.187.194 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
All my applications of WP:ARBECR have been correct. I presume you're concerned with my edit at Special:Diff/1286162559 to remove the discussion you started. This was not a straight forward edit request of the form "Please change X to Y". This was closer to a monologue and more to the point there is consensus that there be a mortarium on discussion of the "as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" sentence until 21 February 2026 (See Special:PermanentLink/1276887484#Moratorium_proposal). TarnishedPathtalk22:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shoot for the Stars, have a read of MOS:NATIONALITY and then refer to the sources currently in use in the article to get an idea. Myself I find the different between "British and American" and "British-born American" to be trivial and would only change from the status quo if there was a noticeable difference in usage in the reliable sources. TarnishedPathtalk05:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Ymerazu I appreciate that, however per CTOP active arbitration remedies which apply to the topic area, editorial best practice is required regardless whether your comments are about me or others. Please reread the notice I previously left you, including the links. TarnishedPathtalk21:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
The Jared Taylor Page
First of all, I want to thank you for your input on that page. And secondly (since I hate making a bad first impression) I wanted to say: I normally don't act like this with other editors (like I have with that Hipal person). It is just that it has been exasperating dealing with them as they won't say what they want and keep giving different reasons for this or that. In any case, thanks again.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 03:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion.Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Jarrad Searby, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
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.
I was trying to figure out something about the history template when I saw you added it (thanks for taking the time to do that)! I wanted to see if it is possible to include Articles for creation nominations in the article history, but am not seeing that in the Template:Article history documentation. Any idea if that is possible to throw into it? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@GeogSage, no worries with that. I came accross the article with the shenangians on the drama board and since I've been doing a bit of work recently bringing articles to GA status I've been using the template in order to reduce talkpage clutter and so I'm familiar with its usage.
Regarding your question about AFC. The template doesn't currently support it but I'd think that it would be able to, but it would require editing of the template and my experience doing that is very small. Additionally, the template is protected. I'd suggest starting a discussion at Template talk:Article history. TarnishedPathtalk04:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Dear TarnishedPath,
The issue around DMY/MDY dates on Pope Leo XIV's article has been tabled at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I have not discarded the RfC due to controversy about whether or not that is appropriate. As you have been reasonably involved in this issue, this is letting you know that it is requested that you submit a summary of dispute on the DRN entry for this issue.
Thank you for time in the RfC and more broadly on this issue. JacobTheRox (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We were working on a consensus which we now can't work on as you've shut down the discussion?
Also you're accusing me of bludgeoning. So can you suggest to me how I'm supposed to deal with a discussion where I've proposed something and then people are replying to me, am I not allowed to reply back then? It feels a little disingenuous, and just a way to shut me down and the conversation down. Icecold (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
You could not repeat yourself over and over for starters. Just because you are responding to someone that is not cause to repeat something you've already stated in the discussion. Secondly, you could use your own words instead of ctrl-c ctrl-p walls of LLM generated text. If you were thinking that conversation was heading towards a consensus, I'm afraid you were incorrect.
As I suggested when I closed the discussion, if you want to pursue your changes I would recommend a WP:RFC, and if and when that is started the exercising of a bit of constraint. TarnishedPathtalk07:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
> You could not repeat yourself over and over for starters
But people are allowed to repeat themselves over and over? I was asked to get a list of reputable sources, which I did, but that still wasn't good enough, because editors are letting their personal feelings cloud their judgement.
> Secondly, you could use your own words instead of ctrl-c ctrl-p walls of LLM generated text.
Completely irrelevant and just a stick to bash me with because you do not like the argument. It's also completely disingenous to say I just ctrl-c and ctrl-p walls of LLM generated text. I used the LLM to help start the discussion to make sure it was well articulated and structured correctly. I did the research that the LLM cited manually, I went back and forth with the LLM to reword things into a way I approved of. It's completely irrelevant and you citing it as a reason to shut down the discussion is telling. Using a LLM to help isn't against wikipedia rules as far as I'm aware, and like any tool, is completely valid if used with caution.
> If you were thinking that conversation was heading towards a consensus, I'm afraid you were incorrect.
Er, someone suggested a different set of language which if we had a chance to nail down may have gathered consensus - we will never know because you shut the conversation down.
>
I might do, but I also don't know if I can handle the amount of people indirectly accusing me of defending bigotry..
> and if and when that is started the exercising of a bit of constraint.
I'm not sure why I'm the one that has to show restraint. I had established editors admit openly that they were using their own opinions on the topic to overlook actual evidence I provided - why aren't you telling them to show 'restraint'?. Consensus building is pointless if people are going to ignore the rules in order to just make wikipedia mirror their own personal opinions on a topic. All my arguments were fact based, and not based on my personal opinion. Icecold (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Consensus was very clearly against your proposed changes. The discussion was completely stalled so a close was appropriate, as TarnishedPath did. Grandstanding about how you only have facts and everyone else has opinions/feelings or something is unhelpful; I suggest you read through editors’ reasons for opposing rather than assuming you’re right and they’re opposing you for disingenuous reasons. GraziePrego (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@GraziePrego Why do you keep appearing everytime I'm having a discussion with someone on their talk page? Are you stalking me? It's weird. With respect I didn't ask you, I asked @TarnishedPath as they were the one that shut down the discussion - but it wasn't stalled, I was having a discussion with another editor who had put forward an alternate choice which I had backed, so it had a consensus of 2 people, and before anyone else got to look at it @TarnishedPath shut down the discussion.
> Grandstanding about how you only have facts and everyone else has opinions/feelings or something is unhelpful; I suggest you read through editors’ reasons for opposing rather than assuming you’re right and they’re opposing you for disingenuous reasons.
Unlike you, I did. Hand that feeds (who was the person that was probably pushing back the most and was all over the thread) explictly said that they were following their moral feelings on this topic as they don't like bigots. Are you saying I should ignore Hand that feeds comments about their own decisions? Icecold (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
"Stalking" I saw that TarnishedPath had closed the discussion, and given that you had replied to every single participant in the previous discussion to tell them they were wrong to oppose you, I made a guess that you would immediately come to their talk page to angrily tell them they were wrong to close the discussion. I thus visited this page, and it turned out I was correct, so I thought I would chime in while I was here. HandThatFeeds' reasons for opposing your proposal are not my reasons, so take it up with them- but I suggest you don't as there really seems no point in continuing this discussion any further. GraziePrego (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question about new topic or unarchiving
I saw you archived the Jabotinsky discussion from the Zionism page, though I was preparing a response there. Would it be best if I post that as a new topic and link to the archived discussion and ping all those involved, or should I unarchive the discussion and add it there? Either is fine by me, but I'll go with whatever the norm is. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
The moratorium only applies to "all discussion about renaming, retitling, or moving this article—or introducing new names into the lead". The discussion I started wasn't about renaming the article or changing the lead paragraph. It was about changing a paragraph in the body of the article. GN22 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@GN22 from the close of the moratorium discussion "Clear consensus for a 6 month moratorium on further discussion of the name of the body of water." TarnishedPathtalk22:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Ohhh, my bad. I was reading off the description in the FAQs section of the talk page, not the close of the discussion. GN22 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: I noticed that you recently closed a discussion about the page Gulf of Mexico, claiming that there is a moratorium that prohibits such discussion. However, the discussion is specifically about the name section, whereas there was consensus to prohibit further discussion in the lead. I have undone your closure. Mast303 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@Mast303 I've just re-read the proposal I put in the moratorium discussion and the close and neither limit the moratorium to the lead. Please re-close the discussion. TarnishedPathtalk22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Gulf of Mexico/America discussion moratorium
What would you consider the best way to enforce the discussion moratorium? Closing discussions as they pop up on talk? Or just deleting discussions when they pop up (assuming they haven't progressed very far)? I'm uncertain. I considered asking this question on that talk page, but ironically I expect it would itself be a violation of the moratorium on discussing the moratorium. :-) CAVincent (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ah okay got it. Your thing is to shut down discussion rather than have to answer questions. Great work there, very constructive. How can I take it elsewhere when I was asking YOU a question (which then got hijacked by another editor who wasn't tagged and is clearly stalking me).
Take it elsewhere was a suggestion to either go to each others talk pages or start an RFC. Either way I've addressed you and my talk page is not a forum for arguments between third parties. TarnishedPathtalk11:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your country/region, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
You have no idea how happy I was to see the revert you did to my edition. As a Wikipedian, it's my responsibility to update articles, so I felt I had to ad that. As a transgender woman, I felt angered by the allegation and frustrated because I felt this would give anti-trans advocates more armor to fight against us. But again, as a Wikipedian, I thought if this was being published, then it had to be here. But I had no idea that the New York Post is not reliable. The Reliable Sources page, i see now, clearly states that it is not. The Reliable Sources page does have one issue: it does not clarify the reliability of several international newspapers. For example, there is nothing about several Latin newspapers. We should gauge them too. But that is another topic that Im planning to bring up at the teahouse. Anyways, Im afraid that this new claim will bring a new wave of anti-trans rhetoric online. But it is what it is. Im just happy that this time it was published by an unreliable source so it won't be on Wikipedia. Even when, during the edit I did, my Wikipedian side won out.Janette Too Energetic Martin (dime?) 03:16, 03 June, 2025 (UTC)
@JeanetteMartin, thanks for reaching out. Even if it's not something that's clearly unreliable that's supporting material, we still have WP:BLPSOURCE to guide us. Quoting the policy: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. I think we can consider that there would be a lot of sources, where there isn't necessarily community consensus that they are generally unreliabel, that don't cut it when making contentious statements about a topic which intersects with BLP, GENSEX and potentially MEDRS. Unfortanetely I've seen the wave of an influx of IPs and WP:SPA's on that article before and I think the best that we can do is make sure that any contentious material that is included is cautious insofar as there has been thorough discussion on it. TarnishedPathtalk04:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
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!
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CoconutOctopus were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hello, TarnishedPath!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CoconutOctopustalk10:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
It is taking a while for them to respond to the citation tag. I am going to wait a few more days, and if the editor doesn't respond, I am going to remove the tag. I think we both did a job removing sources that were not necessary for the article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Daniel Andrews. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hello, TarnishedPath!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
On 14 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jarrad Searby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jarrad Searby left the Proud Boys after he became angry with their disavowal of neo-Nazism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jarrad Searby. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jarrad Searby), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I saw the post on RfC and your reply. I liked your short and sweet response, and thought you could use a beer after dealing with that. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
During the 1980s and the 1990s it was largely known for its "sunshine girls" - swimsuit models who were photographed for the first interior page.
Publishes a blend of opinion and news in most of its articles, with poorly delineated boundaries.
Employs some of the most notorious hacks in Canadian media.
Since the Postmedia takeover it's basically become the dumping ground for material too sensationalist for the more staid National Post.
Best equivalents would be either the New York Post or the various Murdoch tabloids (though there is not, to my knowledge any financial relationship. The New York Post is not a Postmedia product.
Does a lot of sports reporting but not very well in part because of budget cutbacks making it rely heavily on syndication across the Postmedia portfolio. The original reporting in the Sun is mostly opinion.
So, yeah, its bad. If the Sun is the only source for a news event it's undue. If it's being used for opinion it's also probably undue. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223, I get the general idea of the sort of publication you're talking about. I dare say if you asked for an opinion at RSN you'd get the usual types stating that it is "a mainstream media outlet". TarnishedPathtalk12:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
LOL probably. I almost miss the old guard conservative types who would see gauche publications like the Sun as beneath their dignity. It's not that it's a conservative publication - note I'm not going after the Financial Post here - it's that it is crap. But I think a lot of people would see such critiques otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I could respect the old conservative types, because they actually had principles. These days its all about 'which side are they on'. TarnishedPathtalk12:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, thanks for reaching out. I don't think anyone might think I hold a 'partisan' view on that particular subject given I don't think I've edited around it at all. I do note that when Chaptagai reopened the RFC they change the wording, to be slightly more neutral. Although if I do see any other 'wonky' RFC questions in the future I will consider Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. TarnishedPathtalk03:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, it's complicated. Usually, I don't get too fussed about non-neutral RFC questions (though there are exceptions), because experienced editors are so good at seeing through them. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ recommends replying with an explanation of the bias. Of course, there is such a thing as going too far.
Also, sometimes what the OP needs is a nice WP:SNOW fall, so they can feel like they had their chance, and that it didn't work out, so if we give them their chance, it may actually settle the question (for that particular editor; for that article, there's an apparently unlimited supply of people who have the same interpretation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
After the FFF all-thumbs, misclick :) TP, please keep me posted if the behaviors continue elsewhere. Arb Enforcement seems to be somewhat broken, but this seems ripe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi TarnishedPath, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. I'm still pretty new to editing on Wikipedia and I recently submitted an edit request on the Talk:Zionism page. I noticed it was removed shortly afterward, and I just wanted to make sure I didn’t break any norms or protocols.
My intention was to suggest a more neutral tone in a couple of phrases in the lead, not to push a POV or anything like that. If I went about it the wrong way, I'd really appreciate any feedback or advice on how I should approach it next time.
Asking for advice on article improvement for potential good article nominations
Hey! Hope all is well.
Recently I submitted my first DYK article Greater Western Sydney vs Brisbane Lions (2024 AFL season) which you reviewed a while back (thanks!) and was needing a bit of advice. With enough care and attention, I think that I could improve it to a good article. Having never done this before, I was wondering if you could look through it and give me a list of things to work on (large or small) so that I could at the very least make a start. Obviously I am not asking for every little thing, but if you could just pick out some stuff that are big red flags or things that need major improvement that would mean the world.
@TarnishedPath thank you that would be great. Thanks for letting me know tho I will do that next time. I'm also happy to just submit a request for peer review if that is easier for yourself. I appreciate the response either way. Joecompan (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPart That would be much appreciated thank you. I will do peer review too. I appreciate your help a lot. Joecompan (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Text that is not supported by the references given.
I amended this page because the previous text was false and not supported by the references.
Even when a reference asserts something, this is not a fact and short be correctly stated as an assertion by the author.
Please actually read the references before removing my edits and you will see they are appropriate.
The previous text was just someone's opinion. SequiturBlur (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
The reference cited for the edited text shows the election result in which the copycat party received 0.94% of the vote and accordingly as this is below the threshold of 4% required for a return of the election deposits, it is implicit that the party forfeited its election deposits.
Since the goal of the party cannot have been this outcome, it logically follows that its campaign is a failure.
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!
I had saw and wasn't going to say anything at the risk of coming across as grave-dancing, but I can't say I'm surprised. Not to BEANS, but I'm going to keep tabs on a few things in the event that this disruption isn't over. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
July 9–15 - Call for candidates
July 18–22 - Discussion phase
July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
I see you have added the SPA label to my posts on the J.K. Rowling talk page.
While it is true that the vast majority of my talk page edits have been on the JKR talk page, the same can not be said for my article edits, which are far more mixed. Additionally, SPAs are not quite as simple as posting mainly on one topic/page. The general test for SPAs is: A user who appears to focus their edits on a particular article or related set of articles in a way which may cause other users to question whether that person's edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas..
Please elucidate your reasons for believing that my edits are exhibiting promotion, advocacy or a personal agenda. While I have certainly been active on the talk page, I have always attempted to base my posts on policy and reliable sources.
Additionally, i'd ask you to self-remove the excessive tagging. WP:SPA states: If a tag is warranted, it should be limited to one instance per single-purpose account per conversation thread to inform readers in that thread. Adding a tag after every comment by a single-purpose account within a single thread is unnecessary and likely to be perceived as antagonistic.TBicks (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
While that is appreciated, i'm still interested to hear your rationale regarding my conduct that necessitated this (see 3rd para above). TBicks (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Your mainspace edits pale in comparison to the amount of edits which you've made in talk or project pages which are in relation to Rowling. As noted by @ImaginesTigers, only 16 of your 263 edits (at the time of this comment) are in mainspace on articles outside of Rowling. @Sock-the-guy has also brought up your editing stating that all of your edits in the last 12 months have been in relation to Rowling. While they were off in their assessment, I can only see that you've made approximately 7 edits which are not related to Rowling in the last 6 months and a few of those were responding to queries about your signature or blanking your user talk. I'd recommend that you broaden your editing. Your user page indicates that you are interested in astronomical objects. TarnishedPathtalk02:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to direct you back to the general test for SPAs, as I have quoted above. Please explain how my edits have exhibited promotion, advocacy or a personal agenda.
The general test section further states: It must be understood that evidence that a user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus—this is perfectly acceptable. By contrast, evidence that a user is editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral material or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to raise concerns.
Further, the section on the tag itself is prefaced with: In communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag unilaterally added after their name (producing a note that the editor "has made few or no other edits outside this topic"), as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate.
Everything about WP:SPA seems to indicate that it is not simply having edited predominantly one topic/page that makes an SPA tag warranted, but that it must be paired with behaviour indicative of non-neutrality or a personal agenda.
Actually you've refused to answer my query (twice). Meanwhile you've been antagonistic with tag spamming.
I'm not opposed to being tagged with things like this if there are genuine concerns, and I came here in a good faith attempt to understand your reasoning. However, you have either been unable to, or simply refuse to point to any behaviour which would warrant an SPA tag.
Having tried twice to no avail, i'm now done trying to get an answer from you. At least this exchange will be useful evidence in future discussions about this situation. TBicks (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I have self-nominated for the July 2025 admin elections. On my candidacy page, I make repeated and extended reference to my uncivil behavior towards you last year. Because of this, I want you to be adequately notified and ensure you have the opportunity to reflect on my candidacy and offer any remaining or new critiques to my actions on the project. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
You've re-added the content that you have yourself described as WP:Gravedancing, I cannot understand why you want to put your name to an edit containing such content. Collapsing it while leaving it right at the bottom of the talk page has the WP:STREISAND effect, making it more obvious (now it's in all-caps and pretty colours..) If the editor who's content I removed wants to complain, they're welcome to do so, and I have been entirely transparent with them on their talk page. WP:TPO clearly allows for harmful or disruptive content to be removed in some cases, and Wikipedia:Common Sense would surely have it that just removing this comment which is both out of context, and off-topic, is the best way forward. JeffUK19:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
On 5 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Avi Yemini, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Avi Yemini is one of seventeen children who were raised in an ultra-OrthodoxChabad family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Avi Yemini. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Avi Yemini), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 27th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 2025! Boy, does it feel good to kick off the year with an issue. Yep, it's been a year since we cleared out the 2022-2024 backlog with issues 23 and 24! Good times. Though in this case "a year" just means... 6 months? 😯 The salience of whatever joke I was planning to make here has vanished speedily. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
WikiTextExpander by Polygnotus, is this edition's featured script. At the click of a configurable hotkey, this script will find and replace or link a configurable list of phrases within the selected text in all source editors (even in the comment/reply field!). Besides allowing the quick insertion of templated messages, this script greatly mitigates the WP:WTF? problem by providing both the legibility of familiar words and the convenience of shortcuts. And to those asking, the capitalization of "Wikitext" as "WikiText" was a necessary sacrifice for far-more-memorable acronymy.
Updated scripts
CanonNi: AlertAssistant has been fixed and rewritten using OOUI instead of Twinkle's Morebits. Such modern, very tool. (Do note that the maintainer has since become inactive.)
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader has been updated to use modern JS APIs that replace the browser's URL bar with the link you clicked on to load in place. The "back" (and "forward") buttons also work now. Cool, innit?
andrybak: Unsigned helper no longer shows an error when the message to sign was added in the earliest 50 revisions of a page's history. This is especially relevant to pages with short histories.
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Requested scripts
We need scripts that...
allow sorting lists of citations such as by URI or other identifier
automatically convert the capitalization of citations' titles
collect a list of discussion participants and generate a ping list
In breaking m:Tech/News, Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons are now also available. The documentation has examples.
New scripts
Appo/Globstory integrates OpenHistoryMap, updating the map whenever hovering/clicking on a location or year, the latter of which changes the map to be (hopefully) accurate to the year selected. It's pretty interesting.
linkinfo Somewhat similar to WP:NavPops, Awesome Aasim/linkinfo(pictured) provides a collection of links to replace the right-click context menu, presented beautifully.
PreviousDiscussions provides a link to search for your username on subpages of another user's userpage and talkpage conveniently.
Twineeea/noRedLinks brings you to the "read" instead of the "create" tab when you visit a red link. Contemplate life's mysteries as you stare into the blank! Deeply.
No, this is not going to be the enduring tradition of S++ for the future. This was meant to be a joke for the special occasion on the first day of the fourth month but was delayed by four months because I'm lazy.
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.
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Silverchair and Talk:Celine Dion on "All RFCs" request for comments. 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.
It is unambiguously within process for an uninvolved editor to close an RfC in light of a clear and strong response by editors that the RfC is inappropriate. By contrast, it is unambiguously not within process for the opener of such an RfC to revert the close without attempting discussion with the closer. Therefore I have re-closed. ----JBL (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Technical news
Arbitration
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.
Guideline and policy news
Miscellaneous
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just10A (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Of course it won't continue. The other editor is blocked indefinitely, and it seems to be an editor-specific problem. I'll probably unblock as there is no preventative need to keep this up, but I'd like to take perhaps half an hour to think about the whole situation again first, and I think it won't hurt if you do too before continuing to edit. I don't object to anyone unblocking faster than me in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Bureaucrat changes
; see Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) for comments about the article, and Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PARAKANYAA -- PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Rusalkii
NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
Interface administrator changes
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ben Roberts-Smith at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step III of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Avi Yemini and Talk:Avi Yemini/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The redirect Totalitarianism in the United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 21 § Totalitarianism in the United States until a consensus is reached. Golem08 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Newly maintained scripts
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Miscellaneous
