Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 111 · Archive 112 · Archive 113 →

Updated Israel Causalities

[edit]

Seeing that you have E status, please update with latest confirmed numbers:

Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths Toadbria (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit-request on the article talk page. Daniel (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:GoldenWikiSquare.png

[edit]
Notice

The file File:GoldenWikiSquare.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, redundant to File:Goldenwiki.png.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Minorax, have deleted as a G7 to save us a week of waiting. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

[edit]
Merry Christmas, Daniel/Archive!
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 nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 TT me 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close for Atton Rand

[edit]

Hi Daniel, wishing you happy holidays and hope you are well.

I have read the AfD for the above article and I've thought about doing a deletion review for this topic, so I'd like to give you a heads up before I proceed. There is a simple majority for the discussion, but almost all of them are essentially votes without applying guidelines or policies, and I am fairly certain that none of the participants considered all of the extent sources carefully.

To reiterate, it's nothing personal and I understand if you maintain your position that it was rightfully closed. Haleth (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haleth, I don't think I can reverse the outcome here re-reading the debate. Happy for you to go to DRV or alternatively you could write a new and significantly different article to replace the redirect (if you think the existing article could be significantly improved - not sure if your contention was that the previous article was fine, or if the previous article could have been improved). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, however neither the nominator or any of the participants put in a genuine effort to discuss the extent of the sources cited in the article or out in the wild otherwise. Anyway I wanted to go directly to DRV, but I'd give you notice first. Haleth (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: have relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atton Rand for you to argue alternate viewpoints regarding the sources, please see my relist comment there. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

[edit]

Hello, Daniel,

I don't know if you celebrate Christmas but I just wanted to thank you for your AFD patrolling on this holiday. Despite what the calendar says, Wikipedia goes on and tasks need tending to. If you do observe Christmas, thanks for taking some time out of your day to close deletion discussions. If you don't observe the day, well, thanks anyway for all of your work while your fellow admins were occupied with off-wiki activities! Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks! Very much do celebrate Christmas down here, my time zone (UTC 10:30 - strange, huh?) means I was able to jump on at the start and end of my Christmas day while much of the world was either sleeping or pre-occupied. Happy holidays to you too, and appreciate the kind words as always. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at UTC−08:00 so it looks like we are on opposite sides of the world! Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recent ANI

[edit]

First, thank you for clarifying the rule that draft is only when there is full consensus.

I have a question: Is calling a BLP subject derogatory names including a “serial pest” in talk page or ANI (not in the main article)- against Wikipedia rules? And if yes - what could be done?

Thanks. CaseeArt Talk 08:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the exact same phrase used in the Guardian (probably a reliable source?) to describe this person, so in this case either it definitely isn't against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or at worst it's a borderline case. I'd suggest focusing your energies into one of the three venues I provided (AfD, BLPN or the article talk page), rather than trying to get the other editor sanctioned through other means (such as coming here). You are obviously free to do as you please and not take that advice, but I have minimal interest in being involved any further. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Guardian is a strong source and I’m very surprised they call someone “serial pest”. Im planning on editing that article and would love to see that Gaurdian article and Mayby contribute from there. Could you share the link?
PS - Actually I did not appreciate at all that the editor tried to get me sanctioned for a policy that I did not even know about, until you clarified the policy and warned me a few times not to do it again.
And I was also surprised that no one on the ANI answered all my requests about the “serial pest” comment. Until now. And I’m trying to figure out if users are more get away with BLP violations attacking conservative subjects.
I do think that I should get on. Still need to decide which avenue to go, maybe to take a break for now. CaseeArt Talk 10:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source is here. I'm a small-l liberal for what it's worth, and while I think conservative subjects do indeed get attacked more than their left-wing counterparts (and often unfairly), Avi Y definitely brings a lot of it on himself - and is unlikely to end up with a particularly favourable article considering his chequered history, all of which has been covered in reliable sources. My $0.02 anyways. Daniel (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to provide that link @Daniel, but you beat me to it. I agree that there's not a whole lot of material to write a favourable article about Yemini considering the WP:RS and this is a result of his endless pursuit of notoriety. @Caseeart you could have easily found that information with a tiny bit of research, I'm not a man of many original ideas and I certainly didn't come up with that description of him independently from reading about him/watching the news/etc (perhaps helps a little that I live in Melbourne). Alternatively you could have just asked me why I was calling him a serial pest instead of claiming that was some sort of basis for not engaging with me and I would have been happy to oblige you with a WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 10:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...aww....

[edit]

I really liked my "tl;dr. stfu". But I agree with the blanking. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was truly one of the most impressive bits of writing I've seen in a long time! Daniel (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close of The Go Getters

[edit]

Would you consider reopening and relisting? Some of the new sources were just added yesterday (Christmas day), and it might be good to give a little bit more time to the editors who previously !voted to delete to reevaluate. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you foresee this changing to 'delete'? All sentiment late was moving towards 'keep', so I can't see 'delete' happening. I can relist but all that's going to happen is it will be closed as 'no consensus' or 'keep' in 7 further days. Both of these have the same practical outcome (retaining the article). I'm not seeing the point of relisting for a third time here given the outcome will 99.9% be one of these two outcomes that both share the same end result for the article, but if you want me to I will do so. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Australian IP editor

[edit]

FYI.

203.221.17.174 the current IP that the editor is using. It looks like they were temporarily blocked for a period but that block has now expired. Their contribs show that they have recently written on a bunch of different editor's talk pages as they did mine at User Talk:TarnishedPath#Reconciliating to you and the community of Wikipedia. TarnishedPathtalk 10:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Callanecc beat me to it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Mehmood Alam

[edit]

Hy! You have recently deleted article Arif Mehmood Alam, There was a minimal participation in deletion discussion, only one vote for delete. I want to ask you to open its deletion discussion for a week or delete as "Soft delete". So that if we want to work on it after finding more sources, so we can request it for un deletion and work on it. Thanks. 2404:3100:1006:6DD7:5D67:8FAD:83D3:A0E4 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this cannot be done - there was in fact two !votes, in addition to the nominator, and all made compelling rationales for deletion. Further, the sockpuppetry and disruption from new and unregistered editors in this debate makes me even less inclined to reopen the discussion. I am happy with the close and you will need to file a Deletion Review to have this overturned. Daniel (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gurion Canal Project

[edit]

@Daniel Are there any particular reason why this page was deleted 25 December at 22:20 CET? It was a well documented page and now also highly requested too research certain events taking place in the geographical area. Rgds Captain8lue (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain8lue: Per an overwhelming consensus of Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project. FYI - this is linked in the deletion log as the reason, a deletion administrator will always include a reason and sometimes this involves linking to a discussion. Thanks Daniel (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it impossible to search it then? And where are the good arguments. The ones without bias? Rgds Captain8lue (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of good arguments in that discussion, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you disagree, you can file at Deletion Review, although I caution that there is close to 0 chance of my deletion being overturned in this situation. I would encourage you to ask for assistance at the Teahouse, as a new editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Daniel (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
challenge accepted 😁 LtCdrLaForge (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Novoa Invented the Melbourne Shuffle

[edit]

I think you deleted the creator of the Melbourne Shuffle why did the subject not tell the media about it for 30 years?? Purple rain and black sky (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Novoa will not have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia consensus is that he isn't to have an article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Novoa. Are you Maurice Novoa himself, again? Daniel (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Canterbury Tail - this seems familiar... Daniel (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sheesh. I see at least 2 IPs addresses as well that are likely our old friend. I think we'll need a checkuser, but probably enough for blocks. Canterbury Tail talk 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to block as sockpuppetry/block evasion, [1] [2] from four weeks ago is clearly WP:DUCK. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. I see the Maurice Novoa self promotion mass media attack is on again. Seems relentless, but we can only every find sources written by him, his mother or friends or mysterious files uploaded onto his various web servers that are not publicly searched. All very blatant. Canterbury Tail talk 03:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also incredibly blatant how they use the Commons media that was uploaded to try and get his name out there however possible. Those files really should be deleted from Commons tbh. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
id:Melbourne shuffle is hilarious - the same Wiki that Australianblackbelt got blocked on a year ago for disruptive editing. Absolutely no doubt this is just the same person. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm under no illusions. Canterbury Tail talk 03:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello! I think you linked to the wrong talk page in your close here, linking to Talk:Flags of the Ottoman Empire when I believe it should be Talk:Siege of Svetigrad. Thank you! CoconutOctopus talk 20:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoconutOctopus: you are absolutely spot on, thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Undeletion of Baltic Chemistry Olympiad Page

[edit]

Hello User:Daniel,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the Wikipedia page titled "Baltic Chemistry Olympiad" which was deleted on [14.12.2023] for the second time. It is not funny that some wiki-enthusiasts decide that BChO is a minor event. You are obviously unaware of the history and traditions of scientific olympiads. Let me explain that there are only four international chemistry olympiads with a significant history: International (since 1968), Mendeleev (since 1992), Ibero-American (since 1996), and Baltic (since 1993). Most importantly, the problems of the Baltic Chemistry Olympiad problems in English. Most of them are publicly available, and I am currently working on digitalizing the rest of them. Thus, not only is it a regionally important event, but it is also a significant source of problems for the whole Olympiad community.

I have thoroughly reviewed the deletion policy and believe that the page meets the criteria for inclusion based on the reasons mentioned above. I have also ensured that the content adheres to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, neutrality, and notability.

I kindly ask for your consideration to review the circumstances of the deletion and to consider the new information provided in this request. I am open to feedback and willing to collaborate to address any concerns. For more details, please get in touch with me directly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Olunet (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Daniel:, the page is completely rewritten. References are added. Please review the draft and add it to the wikipedia or let me know what should be improved. Olunet (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willa Sandmeyer

[edit]

Curious why you chose delete over NC here. Could care less about the topic, but the sourcing in the AfD is better than most things I've seen deleted and the vote was pretty well split. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclemens, thanks for the note. When I reviewed this I largely discounted Rublamb's !vote due to being largely disproven by Sammi Brie's reply, Suitskvarts cited an essay (SINGLESOURCE), and Kazamzam's !vote lacked detail and a response to the delete !voters concerns. Nearly everybody in the discussion (including Red-tailed hawk's comment which was just about a delete !vote without labelled as such, and also Suitskvarts's keep !vote) acknowledged this had a single source but not the multiple sources required for GNG, and thus I found that the argument that GNG had not been met was probably the strongest - and had sufficient numerical support to be considered a consensus. Have I stuffed up and misread this here? I have always valued your well-reasoned opinions and input at DRV and would be keen to know if you think I've missed the mark with this reading of the debate in your view. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say you've screwed up. Or rather, I'm blunt enough that if I think you screwed up, I'd be more forthright about it, and, frankly, I rarely disagree with your closes. In this case, I think the difference boils down to interpreting Red-tailed hawk's comment. I can't access the link about her apparent near-death, but if someone says that source isn't great for notability, I wouldn't read that as a delete. Unfortunately, it was the last comment, relists had been exhausted, and it was only up for less than five hours before the close. Absent any evidence that Red-tailed hawk's comment was designed to game the system, I'd've called that a no consensus. The other contributing factor was that UtherSRG's !vote was clearly erroneous, as Red-tailed hawk's comment pointed out, leaving everything essentially unchanged since the last relist in my estimation. The world isn't going to end if this article stays deleted... and actually, now that I've typed that all out, I note that LAT piece that everyone had considered SINGLESOURCE... was in an advertising supplement, rather than actual news. So, I've convinced myself you were right the whole time, even if for a reason no one pointed out in the discussion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Bearian#Restoring_DJ_Many_Due_To_Notability_For_RIAA_Gold_Record_Certification

[edit]

Happy New Year. I got a request to create or undelete this article, which has been the subject of no less than four AfDs, but I can't do it now as I am no longer a sysop and am very busy IRL. Can you investigate this matter, having closed a prior AfD? Bearian (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian, thanks for the note. The editor spammed the same copy-paste message to about 15 people (including myself) according to their contribs, and subsequently were blocked for disruptive editing. I don't think a reply is needed anymore as a result, at least if/until they are unblocked. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian IP editor

[edit]

Found them at 124.170.169.93. They gave themselves away when they restored an article that had been deleted by AfD. TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and reverted, thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks Daniel. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadugegoda

[edit]

First of all, in no way critical of you closing this AfD as delete. It's just that I came across, the closed AfD on my watchlist today. My query is whether it would be in order to create a redirect from Wadugegoda pointing to the town of Ahangama of which it is part, if a new governance section within Ahangama was written and mentioned Wadugegoda as one of its Grama Niladhari. Sources are this official map https://www.mpclg.gov.lk/web/images/wardmaps/galle/20_Galle_HabaraduwaPS.pdf (it's no 161B division of Ward 15 in the left hand table) plus Wadugegoda is mentioned in this article where it seems homes in the "village" were damaged/destroyed in a tsunami https://www.sundaytimes.lk/050529/plus/2.html (end of 4th paragraph). Thought it best to ask your opinion rather than going alone, as it may be against some rule. Rupples (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupples, no issue at all creating a redirect here - there was no discussion about a possible redirect in the AfD, so no consensus exists either way as to whether a redirect is appropriate or not. In this situation feel free to be bold and create one - if anyone has an issue with it, they can subsequently take it to redirects for discussion. Thanks for checking though, and hope this makes sense. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Managua

[edit]

How does a 2 delete, 1 keep, and 2 merge vote end up being a merge close? If anything, this should have been a relist. Pilaz (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between delete and merge, there was consensus not to retain the article. Merge was chosen by me as the closer as a valid ATD. No need to relist here when there is a clear consensus not to retain the article. Daniel (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

I saw you closed this AfD. I understand most !votes were to keep, so I'm not challenging your closure. But can you give a more detailed explanation of why you closed the way you did - especially with respect to the contention that this article's scope might be too similar to that of an existing article, making it a WP:CFORK. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, there is overwhelming majority viewpoint that the article should be kept - there is literally no other way a closer could close that, without it being a supervote. As I referenced in my close, any further conversations around scope/potential duplication/altering focus of article to avoid being a fork can continue on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and not asking you to change the closure itself but merely give a more detailed explanation. Can you explain how you assessed whether or not this article is a CFORK of anti-zionism? Despite the overwhelming majority of !votes for keep, very few !votes addresses this point. VR (Please ping on reply) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a well-participated debate like this one, my job isn't to assess whether an argument is right or wrong (that's for those !voting to do); rather, is the argument supported by consensus. In this situation, I assessed that the argument that it is a fork of that article did not have sufficient consensus, and therefore the argument could not be carried as successful. Daniel (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VPK

[edit]

VPK Group AfD is closed by you but tag is still there? Seems weird. Please take a look. Thanks. 108.160.119.59 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.
JMWt (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Embassy of the United States, Managua

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Embassy of the United States, Managua. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pilaz (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Record-keeping note: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 23 closed as endorse. Daniel (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untung Suropati Stadium

[edit]

You closed the AfD on the 9th December, but I already merged the necessary content on the 3rd December last year. I am not sure if you wanted to delete and redirect or not? Govvy (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Govvy, can just be a straight redirect then. I'll action now. Daniel (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revive the deleted page under my user page

[edit]

Hi Daniel. I request (according to this link) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hilja_Tavaststjerna, this article will be revived under my user page so that I can complete it. Best. —Patricia (Talk) 13:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patricia Mannerheim, done at User:Patricia Mannerheim/Hilja Tavaststjerna. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so much thanks dear Daniel.Best.🙋‍♀️ —Patricia (Talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/112&oldid=1224888185"