User talk:Robertsky/Archive 4

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

I missed the discussion regarding the proposal to move Modern Paganism to Modern paganism. While there was clearly a snowball to agree with the single point of Wiki-policy raised in the new discussion. Strikingly, given it does not appear that anyone involved in that discussion had more than a passing familiarity with the topic, none of the participants seemed to address the discussion made during the previous proposal of the exact same move. In that proposal there was significant discussion of whether capitalization is used academically and by practitioners. Similarly, there does not seem to have been any attempt made to engage with the editors involved in the previous proposal. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Darker Dreams hmm... OK? and what you trying to drive at? Seeking an explanation? Reopening the discussion? Or start a new RM? Enlighten me. Also, why didn't you approach me earlier, having made a somewhat related edit approximate 4 days after the close (which would be +/- 1 day of a normal close)? I would likely have reopened the discussion there and then.

I shall answer my own questions, lest I forget or get too caught up IRL.

I have no answers or theories why the participants didn't address the prior discussion, nor do I assume other editors' familiarity or lackof of the topic, but I am unaware of any policy/guidelines to compulsorily notify prior participants (let me know if otherwise). However, if they (or anyone for that matter) had also approach me earlier as well, I may have reopened the discussion as I had done before (User_talk:Robertsky/Archive_3#Shan, User talk:Robertsky/Archive_3#Talbot). SNOW closes, being WP:SNOW, the discussion would likely have been reopened if there's a reasonable objection raised promptly. At this point, some 29-30 days after the close, there have already been some other RMs and non-RM moves based on this move. I am only aware of a couple RMs, the ones I closed, but eyeballing the category tree, there seems be more articles being moved unilaterally since. Reopening this will definitely be messy, since reopening means that this article's move will have to be reverted, other downstreams RMs reopened and non-RM moves reverted. If you wish to seek a second opinion at WP:MRV, you are welcome. But it may be more productive to have a well formulated RM argument acknowledging the SNOW close of this RM, request that this RM shouldn't be procedurally closed despite that because of the reasons why it should have remained at 'Modern Paganism'. At the very least, I hope it is seen as valid reason for yet another RM raised this close to the previous RM.

Did I miss anything else? Let me know! Cheers – robertsky (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't do anything with it earlier because I wasn't (and am still not) sure what the best course of action (reopen, start new RM, something else) is. I made one easy but high-visibility edit, and then got busy IRL. I'm actually surprised at the vigor with which people have gone about adjusting that capitalization. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Darker Dreams sigh.. oh wells. your hands are not tied. when you are sure and have decided, do what you decide to do. :) – robertsky (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

• New instant-access collections:
  • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
  • Project MUSE
  • Taylor & Francis
  • ASHA
  • Loeb
• Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It says on the talk page that you moved the page but still the b is lowercase. DareshMohan (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@DareshMohan missed that. sorry. have filed a request at WP:RM/TR since the target page is admin protected. – robertsky (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Modern paganism. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Per our previous discussion. Darker Dreams (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Darker Dreams thanks for the ping. 😎 – robertsky (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Adventures with Purpose, 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Whitehead (theatre producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. Big.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robertsky,

Were you going to stick with this as a page title? I haven't seen other pages titled "Noun (other uses)". I think you should either find a more appropriate page title or tag it for speedy deletion or for a discussion at WP:RFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz I was just processing a request at WP:RM/TR on this,and was also pondering on which CSD creteria to tag actually. G6? 'not a valid dab qualifier'? – robertsky (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

• New collections:
  • Edward Elgar
  • E-Yearbook
  • Corriere della Serra
  • Wikilala
• Collections moved to Library Bundle:
  • Ancestry
• New feature: Outage notification
• Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky, thanks for closing and moving the page Representative Office of Northern Cyprus to the United States. Per WP:MV#POST, please don't forget to update the first sentence and navigational templates. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vpab15 Noted. Have been dealing with redirects turning into dab pages so often that I have totally missed the redirect in the navigational template. Thanks for the reminder. – robertsky (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Vpab15 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for closing the move request. Can you also rename Lee Tae-min discography so it would be consistent? Thanks a lot. Xia ^{talk to me} 14:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xia I am working on the articles in category tree. :) – robertsky (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xia  Done. I have also filed the categories for speedy renames. – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) I didn't want to do it myself since I initiated the move and didn't want to be accused of being biased. Xia ^{talk to me} 15:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xia actually, you could have just gone ahead. as long as the timestamps of the RM closure and the subsequent moves and the reason in the edit history of the child pages check out, that accusation is baseless. – robertsky (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks, good to know. I only occassionally edit on enwiki, so I'm not 100% familiar with all the rules here (of which there are many...) Xia ^{talk to me} 10:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robertsky,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Regarding the closure of the Caylee Anthony article move (I do not challenge the outcome itself, but rather the wording of the closure statement), it would increase clarity to close RMs where the RM nomination proposes to move to the stable title in the first place as moved and not as "no consensus". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mellohi! I have expanded on the closing statement to reflect that the move back to the stable title is because of 'no consensus' closure. Is that sufficient, or what other part of the statement you suggest that should I expand on? – robertsky (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robertsky. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "NUS College".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you consider closing the discussion of the move you proposed on 7 December? As I read the instructions for closing, you are free to do so because you made the proposal, but others who have taken a position are not. This assumes, of course, that we have a consensus. I think it's clear that the consensus on your proposal is negative. Once this is closed, someone can offer a new move proposal based on the discussion to date. Otherwise we have to wait for a disinterested editor to seize the initiative. Rutsq (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rutsq I wish I can but I can't, I made comments subsequently in the discussion, stating my updated position. – robertsky (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I added a source now HokeyWokey (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@HokeyWokey 👍 – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas, Robertsky
	Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Why were they reverted? ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@ErceÇamurOfficial on Christopher Comstock, a request was filed at WP:RM/TR to revert your move with the rationale that it is contrary to the outcome of the previous RM discussion. Feel free to open a Requested move discussion. – robertsky (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to open a move review on procedural grounds. The page was move protected, and the move happened with a week's discussion, and many of the original opposers, including me, were not informed. Indeed, I relied on the move protection and was not following the talk page closely. Whether the usage shifted, should have been discussed more widely. Park3r (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you’re standing by your move so the discussion here is moot. Nonetheless I apologise for not giving you more time to respond. My objection is that the move appears to have been perfunctory and rushed, especially since it also involved a removed move block and previous objectors were not informed. The fact that the participation was so one-sided should have raised alarm bells when previous proposals were much more controversial. It has a decidedly “dead of night” feel about it, even if that was not your intention. Park3r (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Park3r Discussion here wouldn't have been moot if you had not rushed your decision to post to MR. This isn't my first time deal with such follow ups and I have been opened to re-opening discussion if there's evidence contrary to the consensus and that it is done in a timely manner. I would also suggest other steps to take if I think going through MR isn't going to be beneficial to you. I actually had typed another reply here to ask you for evidence to back your stand, but upon finding that you have actually filed a MR through your user contributions rather than linking here directly, I am offended cuz time had been wasted and thus decided to stand by my decision instead. Calling this a notice is already being polite to you since it wasn't really clear that you would be filing a MR immediately after posting here. – robertsky (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I apologise for not giving you more time, but since the move happened in October, I was quite shocked that the block was removed and the page moved. Your time being wasted is regrettable, however that doesn't change the merits of the argument, and shouldn't shape your decision (I also disagree with the removal of the move protection which is something you didn't do). Regarding the merits of the move I have doubts about the name meeting WP:CRITERIA especially Recognizability and Naturalness, since it isn't pronounceable in English with its combination of clicks and gutturals (and doesn't match any recognisable English spelling patterns), also, previous South African place name changes have bounced around for a while, and take years before they settle. But I maintain an open mind, and would have been willing to consider a potential shift in usage if I had been included in the conversation. I think, as a first principle, that the closure was flawed, and potentially the decision to lift the move block in the first place. Park3r (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning Thank you. Merry xmas to you too! – robertsky (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robertsky,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Robert, My apologies please I am now seeing your invitation to onboard me as a member for the subcommittee. I got sick and got better just yesterday. I do accept your invitation to be onboarded unto this subcommittee. Below is my telegram handle for you to add me to the subcommitte telegram group.

@Joris_Darlington or kindly add me via +233 26 144 0646.

Hope to be added to the sub committee as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Joris Darlington Quarshie. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joris Darlington Quarshie oh dear... hope you have recovered from your illness! – robertsky (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky

Just interested in which part of the "oppose" arguments at Talk:Cunard Line convinced you that there was a consensus against moving? I presented solid policy evidence as to why the shorter name was the preferred title, citing both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE with evidence, and there is nothing in the "Oppose" comments that rebuts that evidence, which means as a closer you should not have given consideration to those arguments. To be honest it all looks like WP:JDLI arguments to me. I had intended to return to reply to some of the comments, but haven't had a chance yet, and I didn't realise it was going to be closed so soon given the firm evidence in favour. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru the second and forth comments got to me, especially so when I clicked through your ngram links, then the keyword links at the bottom the page. Let me reopen the discussion, and have you rebutting the arguments? Will be back after a short workout. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru done, and stepping away from the keyboard for now (and for real). – robertsky (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

On 6 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sim Wong Hoo, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 08:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Robertsky! Can you help me to review the Draft:Judika article that I wrote? I see that you are a part of WikiProject Articles for creation. Thank you. Fadly kurniadi (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I thank you very much for the help. But I'm still wondering why the review you gave goes to the redirect page entitled "Judika" and not to the "Draft:Judika" page. Are there any technical limitations because the Judika page already exists as a redirect page? Fadly kurniadi (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fadly kurniadi yeah, the limitation is called time and priority. almost all of your references are in Indonesian/Malay, which I don't have a full command of therefore expotentially increases the time required to review. That being said, I am not reviewing now, neither I am going review soon as I have other matters to attend to first. But skimming through, do try to add references to the awards as well. Thanks. – robertsky (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky Thanks for the feedback. I have added the award reference and the page has been reviewed by another reviewer. Fadly kurniadi (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fadly kurniadi that's great to hear. Enjoy your weekend! – robertsky (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the whole list of VFL grand final articles after the close. I was going to get TolBot to do it, to avoid the manual work, but it looks like you have some pretty efficient way, too. Dicklyon (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: thanks and you are welcome. There is still some manual work involved. However, I have written a javascript snippet (available on one of my sub pages) for myself to access and prepopulate the move page in a easy manner. – robertsky (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, good to know. Be aware that User:Tol has gotten permission for TolBot tasks to do bulk page moves when there's a clear consensus at an RM discussion that references the list, in case you'd rather not take on the manual task. I'll be proposing some rather longer lists, as I have in the past. Dicklyon (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dicklyon if is not manageable when I close your long lists, I will certainly request Tol to process the lists. :) – robertsky (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You declined the submission of this topic under AfC because of WP:NFF. Please check the recent edits of the subject and I resubmit for review. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007 done. :) cheers! – robertsky (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou so much. I'm very impressed and deeply grateful for the work you did. Edisstrange (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll update Anoplognathus flavipennis with the new info cheers Edisstrange (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

On 14 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Victoria Lee, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in Articles for Creation's January 2023 Backlog Drive! You reviewed 24 drafts, for a total of 29.5 points. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robertsky, I am just a little bit confused why you did a procedural close of move discussion for biomass? I felt that we had recently a consensus and was now waiting and expecting to see the move being carried out? I.e. to move biomass to biomass (energy)? EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile nothing in the procedural close is stopping you from moving the page as discussed. let me revise the closing statement. i was expecting bold moves to be made actually, especially when there is a concurrence with VQuakr's bold statement. – robertsky (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, looking good now! :-) EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this! Could I please also ask you for a further favour? Would you be able to do a wp:history merge of Talk:Biomass (energy)/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass into Biomass? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: Apologies, I am not an admin, theefore unable to carry out history merges. However, I don't think this request is a candidate for HISTMERGE. Firstly, it is not a cut and paste move. My brief (in length and time) dab version isn't taken from the proposed dab page link. Even if I didn't say it is not cut and paste, one can tell that both versions are vastly different when looking at the page histories. EMsmile's broad concept version that came minutes right after my edits is also different from the proposed dab page. I may be wrong, after all, I have a fair bit of my histmerge requests rejected. You may file your request at WP:RFHM to have an admin look into this instead and decide if a HISTMERGE is necessary. – robertsky (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

would a manual copy and paste to the talk page of biomass do the trick in a simplified manner? EMsmile (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile if you want to preserve the discussion in case the Biomass (energy) page gets lost further in your shuffle, I would say yes. @Clayoquot, what do you think? – robertsky (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with whatever is simplest. Thanks for your help! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've done a copy and paste from that page now - is that OK? It doesn't preserve the full history but I think that doesn't matter, right? Would it be tidier if we now deleted this page?: Talk:Biomass (energy)/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass (or placed a redirect from there to Talk:Biomass?) EMsmile (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile I think redirect will do. – robertsky (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, done. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you have reverted the page-move vandalism at Kamōš-ʿaśa, but not yet the one at Chemosh-nadab. Could you please resolve this? Thanks in advance. Antiquistik (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik apologies for missing this out. On it. – robertsky (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Much thanks! Antiquistik (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Robert.

I'm André Rodrigues, a Wikimedian from the LGBT+ User Group. In 2023, we are planning our annual event, Queering Wikipedia, as a hybrid conference. Looking through Wikimania 2023 page, I saw that you're in charge of Audio Visual Technical needs for hybrid & remote conferences, so I was wondering if you could help me with some tips for the event production. We are especially looking for open source meeting options, but we are also open to private platforms if they work better (considering accessibility and privacy issues).

It would be extremely helpful if you could give me some input on this topic. You can also email me at andrerodriguex@gmail.com if you want to. Thank you! Andrerodriguex (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrerodriguex @Robertsky lets catch up on Telegram and plan a meeting next week or soon after. --Zblace (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I understand that the argument has lacked civility and seems to be an endless back and forth, but I feel as if closing it yet another time is just going to delay the East Timor rename argument for a few years, and return back to where it is now with little change. There has been eight whole discussions on the page rename, and if we want a "a more depth look/analysis on modern usage of either term," then I suppose it should be made now or very soon.

I suggest that the discussion is reopened and an outline and analysis of all the arguments for either side created, and then a definitive vote can be made that can only result in a rename or the name staying East Timor, in both cases with move protection (unless if something major changes to the country that can spur another discussion). Having it be no consensus once again seems to me as it will appease no one- I fully understand why you figured a closure was warranted, but I believe it's just a band-aid to an unresolved issue that seems like it won't ever be resolved at this rate. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@HadesTTW, thanks for reaching out.

I am cognizant of the multiple attempts to move the article to Timor Leste. However, for this discussion, it is my view that there's no point reopening it if no one has the in-depth data to back either stance. This is also not a premature close given that the discussion had gone on for 25 days, way more the minimum 7-day period, and an extended 14-day period (if there's minimum participation or unclear consensus) for RM discussions. The discussion is also already one of the more well-attended ones with ~27 editors participating, in comparison of other typical RM discussions where there would be 3 or 4 participants. Extending the discussion further is just muddying the waters further.

I had attempted to reconcile both sides of the discussion after a couple of days of lull in each burst of editors inputting their comments, trying to close it at least 3 times in either direction. Each time, no matter how differently I draft my closing statement each time, the conclusion that I arrived is the same. Also, do note that discussions here are arrived by consensus and not by a vote. Having it be no consensus once again seems to me as it will appease no one: conversely having a definitive outcome with a justification based on the arguments that both sides had thrown out will please no one as well since the arguments are similar to each other, revolving around common name, modern name guidelines/policies.

The next move discussion may not be far off, as long as someone can spend the time to extract the data from news sources, scholarship papers, etc and weigh the usage of both terms, rather than just relying on Google hits or corpus extraction. – robertsky (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I see- I understand that it is an incorrect to call it a "premature closure," though there really should be something done to help advance this discussion which is so intensely argued. Perhaps an editor could start doing a serious scholarly analysis of the reasons for and against a rename- of course, more than the completely arbitrary method of finding out which term is used more in academia or the news.

I would volunteer but I feel as I am not qualified enough- I do not personally know anyone from East Timor, and I'm sure much of the analysis has been conducted in Portuguese which I do not speak. Here's hoping that the next discussion will be far more informed and sourced than the previous have been.

Thanks for the thorough explanation.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Robertsky. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Rail Corridor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2021–2023_Myanmar_protests#Requested_move_26_February_2023 --- Tbf69 P • T 18:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that you have accused everyone as sock on page of Guling, Jiangxi. Please stop such behaviour. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not without justifications: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gweilo60. – robertsky (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

yes its without justification. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

regardless, formalised rfc isn't the next step in dispute resolution for requested moves discussion. the next steps are:

1. discussion with the closer
2. WP:Move review

– robertsky (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok.I want to discussion with you about the title name, mount lu. Because you are closer.

Wp: NCCHINA said use pinyin to name places in China, don't you see the discussions?

Is mount Lu Pinyin? 120.21.44.91 (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

150.101.89.115 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

• New bundle partners:
  • Newspapers.com
  • Fold3
• 1Lib1Ref January report
• Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki article: Phitsanulok (reads) Administration The administration of Phitsanulok City Municipality is responsible for an area that covers approximately 18.26 sq.kn (7.05 sq.mi) and consists of only tambon Nai Mueang, 64 municipal communities [11] (chumchon), and 38,626 households [12}.

If you click on this [11] reference, you get a list of 64 municipal communities, but no map added, with a random numbering.
So my intention is to simply improve this list with four maps and with the desired numbering, starting at the top (north) and counting clockwise.
I hope this gives a better understanding of why there are only four maps. Thus not with the added information about all 64 municipal communities. SietsL (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@SietsL, hi! thanks for following up with me. that one reference is not sufficient to establish the notability of the standalone list. That reference seems to be from the authorities rather than an independent source. You can read more at WP:NLIST, WP:STANDALONE. And also, reiterating, Wikipedia is not a directory. – robertsky (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In the summary of your edit, you said that a discussion was taking place elsewhere of the move revert discussion I had taken a part of, but you failed to inform others of the discussion's location (which I now have to look for). Further, User:162 etc. seems to be preempting page moves before the discussions have closed; he has been warned once recently for a different article. It's very difficult to keep track of what's happening if editors aren't notified about where discussions have been moved to. Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@CJDOS, village RM: Talk:Punanai#Requested_move_22_March_2023. – robertsky (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for taking the time to review this submission. I am working on references for the bulk of the material in the article to ensure it meets the standards Wikipedia expects. With reference to the style/layout/etc, I tried to mimic that of other artists on the platform, but it seems to have come across as more of a resume. Would limiting the Awards and Exhibitions to noteworthy events positively impact the quality of the article? Any additional insight you could give would be greatly appreciated! Rememberart (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rememberart, External links section should be sparingly used. Facts about him being neutralised citizen should be back by sources as such fact is prone to dispute and/or vandalism. If you have an agreement to release photos and images of his works under the creative commons, email them in to commons. If not, pictures of his works can be uploaded here on en wiki under fair use (i.e. with {{Non-free 2D art}}). – robertsky (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the great feedback! I have added a good amount more citations though I am still looking for a few on known facts that can be substantiated. Additionally, I reduced the external links section to one link, and cut out the less important/commercialized exhibits and the member section to make it feel less like a resume about the author. I am waiting for the removal of the Wiki commons photos so I can re-upload under fair use. I am sure you are quite busy with life and moderation work, but if you have a chance would you be willing to take another look before re-submission and provide any more feedback? I am expecting at least 4 - 6 more citations in the main Artistic Career section, and have put in placeholders for two, but any direction/feedback would be greatly appreciated! Rememberart (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this page. Please provide an example of how this page reads like a brochure. It is my goal to improve it. Smstarck (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Smstarck, the only section that can possibly establish the WP:GNG of the association is the lead section. An expansion on the history of the association, backed by third party reliable sources goes a long way. Also, rather than just listing the projects, linking to the projects, and giving a brief description: drop the external links (WP:EL), expand on the projects' history and description. Current project section is just blatant advertising. – robertsky (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thank you. Smstarck (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Can you revert you move and start a requested move discussion if you want? The last Talk:Flag of The Bahamas#Requested move 20 July 2020 resulted in majority for no move. Skovl (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Skovl, will revert, but did you read the edit summary? the RM discussion should come from @HapHaxion, as they are the one who made the initial request. – robertsky (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Somehow I missed that it was requested by HapHaxion, sorry... The argument that "The" is officially capitalized in the name by the constitution was already discussed during the last Requested move 20 July 2020 Skovl (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem. :) I must confessed that I had missed out on the discussion somehow when I carried out the move. Thanks for catching and following up. :) – robertsky (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for taking the time to review this submission , i just want to know why my draft is still pending till now Kassemissa9 (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't review, was just clearing up. Have just reviewed. – robertsky (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The part about Groove Music/Media Player (2022) in the Windows Media Player article hopes that you can help update Groove Music is not exclusive to Windows 10. Windows 11 was also built in and was replaced by Media Player (2022) after 2022. And 2023 At that time, Media Player (2022) has also replaced Groove Music in Windows 10. I hope you can help rewrite part of the description in the Windows Media Player article that mentions Groove Music/Media Player (2022).

Groove Music was also included in Windows 11. Should the beginning of the article be adjusted? 112.104.154.95 (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no edit restriction on the article. Feel free to update the article as you wish as long as there are sources to back any potentially contentious statements up. – robertsky (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason I ask for help is because my English is not very good and I don't know how to modify part of the introduction.

So update these intro this part hope you can help. 112.104.154.95 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not very proficient in English, and this adjustment includes sentences that may need to be rewritten, so I need to ask someone who is proficient in English to assist. 2401:E180:8843:26BF:D89A:43C1:E327:64CD (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

... made a number of linked pages which were redirects into double redirects; this was exacerbated when Bassa Vah alphabet was deleted by User:Deb, making it a redlink for all the linking pages.

Your edit comment said, "attempting to revert POV move by an editor attemting to change NCWS while discussion is ongoing". (I presume "attemting" was in the requestor's original text; perhaps that should have been a hint.) The prior move commented: "this is language-specific (only Bassa uses it), thus meets the current WP:NCWS definition of alphabet; article even describes it as such."

Please see WP:NCWS#Alphabets for yourself: the first sentence (preceding a list of examples), verbatim: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:"

Please also see (now) Bassa Vah script, described in the lede as "for writing the Bassa language of Liberia." (And in the next paragraph as "a true alphabet".) Is that or is it not both "language-specific" and an alphabet?

I leave it to you. – _•Raven  ^.talk 18:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven I suggest that you reread the edit summary. You will find that it clearly stated that the move was carried on behest of @Kwamikagami to revert your undiscussed move, as a pagemover.

Whatever argument you have with Kwamikagami, which I take what you wrote above is about, the article's talk page is the venue. If you think that the article should be at "Bassa Vah alphabet" and require further inputs from other editors to reach a consensus, please raise a requested move discussion on the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I had reverted his undiscussed (non-consensus) move per WP:RMUM, to restore the original title of that article. At this point in BRD, it was up to him to open a discussion, not make the move again (BRR D) – move-war – which is what he used WP:RM#TR to do. WP:RMUM: "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." [emphasis added]  IOW, the page should be in its original position ("alphabet") until kwami persuades others it should be moved to "script", not the other way around. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: looking at the move history of the article, it was last stable in various 'script' titles without dispute until your initial undiscussed move on 8 April 2023. There is a period of about 8 years, until 2019 which it was in an 'alphabet' title, but you will have to ask @Kwamikagami for details as there was no edit summary or nothing much there.

All moves on this article were undiscussed (and unopposed until recently), therefore I looked at the last stable title which the article was at relative to the time between your undiscussed move and his techinical request in my evaluation as to which title to revert to. The article was at 'Bassa Vah script' since 2021. ~2 years vs 1 day? The last stable title also matches with the technical request that Kwamikagami made. Therefore, I determined that your move was bold, and Kwamikagami was within his rights to revert in the BRD chain. (Going back just a step further, it existed as 'Bassa script' since 2019, also without dispute.)

Bassa Vah → Bassa Vah script → Bassa script → Bassa alphabet → Bassa script → Bassa Vah script → Bassa Vah alphabet → Bassa Vah script() → Bassa Vah script

Date	From	To	Performer	Comment
2010-06-08T08:58:54Z	Bassa Vah	Bassa Vah script	Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)
2010-06-08T08:59:45Z	Bassa Vah script	Bassa script	Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)	WP:English
2011-07-31T00:27:31Z	Bassa script	Bassa alphabet	Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)
2019-03-15T09:42:38Z	Bassa alphabet	Bassa script	Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)	Requested by Kwamikagami at WP:RM/TR: a distinct script
2021-03-01T23:23:59Z	Bassa script	Bassa Vah script	Buidhe (talk | contribs)	Requested by DePiep at WP:RM/TR: Swap over redirect. Name has been established. Since 2010, both ISO 15924 (script naming authority) and Unicode have formalised the name "Bassa Vah" (in English).[https://www.unicode.org/iso15924/codechanges.html]
2023-04-08T06:06:35Z	Bassa Vah script	Bassa Vah alphabet	.Raven (talk | contribs)	this is language-specific (only Bassa uses it), thus meets the current WP:NCWS definition of alphabet; article even describes it as such.
2023-04-09T11:22:10Z	Bassa Vah alphabet	Bassa Vah script()	Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)	rv. ignorant move
2023-04-09T12:06:25Z	Bassa Vah script()	Bassa Vah script	Robertsky (talk | contribs)	Requested by Kwamikagami at WP:RM/TR : attempting to revert POV move by an editor attemting to change NCWS while discussion is ongoing

(Table generated using User:Nardog/MoveHistory.) – robertsky (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice that the only person ever adding/changing "script" to Bassa Vah has been kwami. He also changed it to "alphabet" (for, as you say, about 8 years) on 2011-07-31, which is 16 days before he himself added the present criterion "language-specific" to the definition at WP:NCWS#Alphabets, amid long discussion to reach consensus at WT:NCWS#Naming consistency through WT:NCWS#comments (several sections). That distinction still exists, was not changed back, was not discussed. You're telling me the 8-year-old title, fitting the naming convention at WP:NCWS#Alphabets and the consensus that created it, was not stable? But the 2-year-old title, going against both that naming convention and that consensus, was?

It's fully true that I created an RfC proposing the addition of "or use-specific" to "language-specific", although "for specific languages or use" had been in the "burgeoning consensus" Vanisaac discussed at the top of WP:NCWS#Honing in on a consensus... and kwami had dropped the "or use" part when he posted his edit. But this applies to alphabets like ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet, and Theban alphabet, all of which kwani has declared "scripts". My proposal does not apply to such natural-language alphabets as Bassa Vah, nor did I cite it for any move... which would have justified the "POV warrior" accusation.

It's also fully true that, later in the same RfC, I proposed rephrasing that "language-specific" criterion for clarity as "specific to one or more languages" to address the issue raised in that discussion by Christoph Päper in WT:NCWS#comments on 16 August 2011 (a full hour before kwami made it "language-specific") and DePiep on 17 August 2011. Päper had stated "If an alphabet is specific to more than one language then it’s still language-specific."; DePiep's expectation was that term "language-specific" (by then in place) would be taken to include the plural, yet over subsequent years kwami has been taking "language-specific" to mean 'only one language' and exclude alphabets specific to a group of languages. (Besides the single Bassa language's Bassa Vah alphabet, he's also retitled other one-language alphabets to "scripts" in such cases as the Somali language's Kaddare alphabet and Osmanya alphabet, the Zaghawa language's Zaghawa alphabet, the Albanian language's Vithkuqi alphabet, and the Mandaic language's Mandaic alphabet – though that last page's editors restored the "alphabet" title... 2 years, 7 months, and 2 days later! Was that wrong then?)

But my reversion to the previous title, Bassa Vah alphabet, was in accordance with the existing criterion, which has been in the naming convention since 16 August 2011, and that discussion, which already took place back then; surely those had "stability". So it didn't require rephrasing the convention, and didn't seem to need a whole new discussion. – _•Raven  ^.talk 05:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven That distinction was blurred when DePiep filed the technical request in March 2021 to move from Bassa script to Bassa Vah script. The request was to change the first half of the article name, and silent on script/alphabet. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As you say, silent on the script/alphabet point. What needed to be (and was) corrected was adding the actual name of the alphabet (Vah) where only the language name (Bassa) had been. The Bassas themselves call it merely "Vah", as could be seen at one of the cited URLs kwami deleted. – .Raven  ^.talk 17:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

> "If you think that the article should be at 'Bassa Vah alphabet' and require further inputs from other editors to reach a consensus, please raise a requested move discussion on the article's talk page." – FYI, I have done that, on 7 of the (talk) pages in question, citing the existing convention WP:NCWS#Alphabets. Also FYI, Kwami has accused me of "bad faith" for doing so [2nd comment in that edit], so apparently there's no "good faith" way to dispute his moves. – .Raven  ^.talk 06:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven, I can only suggest that you ignore the hostility and just let RfC to run its course first, if anything, to solidify the previous discussions (my opinion: which the lack of closure/closing statements of the relevant sections admittedly hard to see the consensus to laypersons, which most of us editors are). – robertsky (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The deletion was requested to make way for a page move, which is why I didn't concern myself with any remaining redirects as I assumed (makes an ass of u and me) the requester was waiting for the deletion so as to replace it with something. I should have checked the history - though I'm not sure I would have been able to figure it out. Deb (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Deb, I think all's good with the recreation of the redirect (no less by the initial CSD requestor, I believe?). – robertsky (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi robertsky! I understand your concern here, but I think it's misplaced. As someone closely involved there, I believe the move Fatimah ---> Fatima was controversial not because of dropping the 'h'. In fact, all 'Fatima's on the disambiguation page are spelled without 'h'. That move was controversial because Fatimah ---> Fatima would have made Fatima bint Muhammad the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) which some didn't agree with. That is not the case in the present proposal (Fatimah bint Musa --> Fatima bint Musa) because there is no other 'Fatima bint Musa's on Wikipedia. Instead, the proposal is a long overdue change to match the prevalent spelling on Wikipedia ('Fatima' rather than 'Fatimah'). I hope I was able to convince you that this move is indeed uncontroversial. Albertatiran (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 22:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I moved the article to Face 2 Face (song). Per WP:SONGDAB, there are no other songs named "Face 2 Face". User:In ictu oculi reverted it. Should probably go to RM; it's unnecessary disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking to create a new article and I'm not quite sure how to. Are you able to help? --Nique2400 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Nique2400,

Welcome to Wikipedia! For a comprehensive guide on creating a new article, you can go through Help:Your first article. As a new editor, you can try creating a working version first in your sandbox (click through here: User:Nique2400/sandbox and click on the Edit button). In the above-linked help article, there are tips on what and how to write an article. After you are done with your working version, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your working version to submit it to a pool of experienced editors to review your submission.

My personal recommendation is to edit and expand articles that are similar to the subject that you want to write and get use to the styles and requirements of writing on Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have temporarily enabled the flag on your account until 2023-09-30. Keep in mind these things:

• The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
• The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
• Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! Courcelles (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)