User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 37

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is my archive for threads from 2022 that don't belong in my themed archives.

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello WereSpielChequers: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year

WereSpielChequers,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~~~~

Thank you so much! Wishing you a most happy 2022! And thank for all your hard work and contributions around here. Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

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

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

Happy New Year, WereSpielChequers!

Happy New Year!

WereSpielChequers,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Happy new year !

Giri und Ninjõ

Nattes à chat (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Merci Beaucoup. ϢereSpielChequers 22:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcome training Leeds

Template:Welcome training Leeds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 19:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, would you please revdel this pair of edits? Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion, revdeled and page protected. ϢereSpielChequers 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!

Thanks Captain Raju. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted key content

Hi, WereSpielChequers and bbb23. I had added a large amount of content to this article. Why did you delete it? You can re-write what I had written. You can use your vocabulary, but please keep the information, which is extremely important and helps enrich Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightstarrrr (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Brightstarrrr, which article are you talking about, and what sources did you cite? ϢereSpielChequers 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Much obliged Mr Reading Turtle. ϢereSpielChequers 17:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

rev del

On this. ip's only edit (added to a talk thread from 2014). Block too? Hope all goes well, Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, rev deled and blocked. Oh and thanks, looking good so far, less than a month to go. ϢereSpielChequers 13:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - good to hear. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

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

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

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

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

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Kyla Carter

Hi, thanks for reviewing my speedy request on Kyla Carter. Just to add that this article has been created several times under slightly different names, and now it appears to have been created yet again, and moved from drafts into the main space by the creator who has a declared COI. The last time this was speedied (back then called Kyla carter), I believe it was done on the basis of the earlier AfD, and I just lazily referenced the same in this request; apologies. If it doesn't qualify for speedy, so be it, but it shouldn't IMO exist in the main space either, if only because of the COI. Could you please take another look at the history of this, not just under this exact name but also at Kyla carter? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Double Grazing, I did consider A7, but there is clearly an assertion of importance. COI is a hard thing to establish where fans are likely to exist, and what I see is a harmless and not particularly promotional article on someone of marginal notability. I suspect that the article might not survive AFD, but my focus is on keeping out the stuff that seriously doesn't belong here. I rarely nominate or take part in the discussion of non negative articles on people of borderline notability. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have to consider taking it to AfD, then.

I'll just repeat, though, that User:Manish2saxena has declared COI on their user page, so at the very least they shouldn't have bypassed AfC with this.

Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

when someone admits to having a "Huge Crush" on the subject, I'm inclined to treat them as a fan and in this case, one who I think is trying to write neutrally. ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Updates to bureaucrat minimum activity requirements

Hello WereSpielChequers.

Following a discussion at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, the minimum activity requirements for bureaucrats have been updated to also include the the recently updated minimum editing requirements for administrators (i.e. at least 100 edits every 5 years). This will be enforced beginning in January 2023. Should you no longer wish to volunteer as a bureaucrat you may request removal at SRP and.or let us know at WP:BN.

Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Chat

Your input is requested at the freshly-created bureaucrat chat. Useight (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, responded there. ϢereSpielChequers 07:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #1

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

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at the 20 Wikipedias that participated in the test. You will be able to turn it off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 18:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks that's good to hear. One has to wonder though, how much more positive results would be if we trialled auto sign on talkpages for new accounts. ϢereSpielChequers 18:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

New York (state) - Misleading information through omission of facts.

Hi there, I was hoping to seek out help with the New York State wiki page. I was being told I was being disruptive.

My concern is that it is potentially politically-motivated in a bit of a subdued understated way. In the "History" section, COVID 19 flag change" subsection, It directs criticism towards the state of NY (and Andrew Cuomo) about the state having 50% of the COVID cases (including court rulings against religious gathering restrictions; we all know that right wing media went off the rails over that policy.)

Anyway, all of this information is included, using the dubious source of Vox.

My attempt has been to temper this section with more.complete and relevant information to bring the argument back into proper context:

1) NYC is the most densely populated city in country, with the highest population, as well as the most daily visitors. No other US city comes close.

2) Population size, density, and movement of people plays a very significant role in the spread of viruses.

I've posted several sources, mostly from Pubmed, but it's considered "disruptive." Meanwhile, the entire section is maintained using Vox as a source.

My concern is the narrative that political extremists on media go to in omitting relevant information when making wild criticisms of certain places and certain politicians. And Wikipedia as an exclyclopedia, also omitting the same relevant information.

My latest source is this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8239687/

Look at the references in that source. They are many and varied. The main conclusion to be drawn is this:

" that population density has a significantly positive effect on the number of cases but not the number of deaths, as the latter is better explained by measures of preparedness. Plausible explanations are presented for the results to conclude that the “density paradox” is not really a paradox. This paper makes a contribution by shedding more light on a frequently debated issue by using a completely different, and more robust, statistical techniques and by providing results that may be helpful for health and urban planners."

The gover or of NY was in a very unique position of having NYC as the anchor of the Mid Atlantic megalopolis that spans from Virginia, up to New Hampshire along the entire Mid Atlantic seaboard, and therefore, unique measure needed to be taken for a major health crisis that uniquely affects such heavily urbanized areas.

Since I was unable to get anywhere with two users on the NY State page, I decided to find a way to file an official dispute. I found a page with a list of highly experienced editors that are recently active, and I decided to hit you up

Thank you. Nihilianth (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nihilianth, I would suggest raising this at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can get a judgment as to whether VOX is a reliable or dubious source for this article or indeed whether your pmc article is more reliable. Also I'd focus a report there on the issue of which of these sources could be considered reliable. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@werespielchequers , I'll check that out and leave it as a concern. Nihilianth (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Admin needed

Can you please take a look at Futebul's activity at Kurmanc. It's a POV-article that should be a redirect (and more than one experienced editor has been involved) but Futebul and seemingly sock Hydralon keep reverting. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I can see that this would be a controversial article. But that isn't unusual for Wikipedia. From an initial glance, there are two conflicting national views on the topic, so provided they can be reliably sourced why not include both in the article with due weight between them. Simply redirecting it to one particular topic would make it seem that Wikipedia has taken sides and ruled that one nationalist view is correct. ϢereSpielChequers 09:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a sockpuppet investigation going on regarding Futebul which I'm patiently waiting for. I did start cleaning up the articel just to make it clear that the premise of the POV page is wrong but all of that has been reverted as well.[1] The introduction is well-sourced but the "Information" section is just cherrypicked and not in line with expert references. If there is some truth to in, it can be added in the Kurds article, we don't need an article for everything. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

AFD is the arbiter for whether a subject merits an article. But if some people see the Kurmanc as different from the Kurds then simply mentioning this in Kurds would be to dismiss the argument that the Kurmanc are or were different. ϢereSpielChequers 09:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So removing sourced information is not a problem? The editor has not only done so but also removed templates that I added as pages were not given in their references. This Kurmanc-question is not even a debate taking place in academia, just cherrypicking. A simple "kurmanc kurds" search on Google Books confirm that. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You might want to reread my comments above. There is a big jump from wanting to redirect something to being concerned about loss of sourced content. ϢereSpielChequers 17:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Antony Barnett

Dear CambridgeBayWeather,

I added the disambiguation page because if I do a Google search for "Antony Barnett Wikipedia" Google will not produce this page, it produces "Anthony Barnett (writer)".

In fact, after several months, I think Google has not even indexed the page.

how can this be solved? i'm guessing most people search for Wiki pages directly through Google. And even the most well phrased search will send searchers to the wrong page.

-Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher22500 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi are you sure you're in the right place? CambridgeBayWeather may not watch this page. ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers. I replied on their talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Wordsalad

Elizabeth Chong siew Chu razaruddin hasani Jakim Hakim Ramadan Ramadhan Ramadhani Ramayana Ramayama Sadal SITI rohani binti Mohamed red zaw organization Zuraidah Ibrahim Liyana Norida Ruwaida Zuraidah Ibrahim liyana Liana IANA ID IbrahimHelenaKimberley Burberry dana Kate Amanda Gigi Zhang yee Zuraidah Ibrahim Liyana Kate Amanda Gigi Zhang yee muyiddin yassin Muhyiddin yassin Suleiman suliaman Al fatihah Ri Ayatuddin Baharuddin Razaruddin Husain woo Kah Yee Kimberley Burberry dana Kate Amanda Gigi Zhang yee Siva Kumar. Kamalruddin Hassan Ghana Ghani Ghazi Dhaja Dhabi razaruddin Hussain Shah Kate army armada Gigi Zhang yee Zuraidah Ibrahim Liyana Norida Ruwaida Zuraidah Ibrahim liyana Norida Ruwaida Zuraidah Ibrahim Liyana Norida Ruwaida Zuraidah Ibrahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:228A:F198:8C39:4A12:213D:A456 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no clue what that word salad relates to or what you want me to do with it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Well I've recently been kicked off TVTropes, so maybe I'll start editing Wikipedia again. It's been a while since I've been to the Pendrell, so I think I may follow up. Nice to hear from you again! Serendi^podous 10:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, err, that sounds like a good thing to discuss at a meetup - I've never edited TV tropes, but was quite involved in Quora for a while. Since the events of the last few years I've taken the precaution of diversifying my hobbies in case I need to leave Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Fixing my errors deserves thanks, but the edit summaries are the icing on this cupcake. Thank you. CT55555 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thou art most welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 21:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

{{You've got mail}}

Thanks, action taken against the nastiest bits. ϢereSpielChequers 07:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ceres (dwarf planet)

Please let me know if you hit any snags :) Serendi^podous 18:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've given it a thorough read as an outsider to the subject. I think it is ready to take to FAC. Three questions jump to my mind, the first two, how big is it and how far away is it would probably occur to every general reader. The third, how is it portrayed in Science Fiction, would likely occur mainly to an SF reader like myself. The graphic showing the relative size of the Earth Moon and Ceres is good, but maybe needs more prominence. I'm not sure if I saw something saying its closest and furthest distances from Earth, I expect astronomers may be more interested in things like relative brightness. As for in fiction, I'm not sure whether such sections are deprecated, but if not a small section towards the end would seem merited in my view. If I can ask your opinion of my work, and yes it is nowhere near the FA standard of Ceres, but I'd like your feedback on Cathedral of the Nativity of Our Lord, Upper Clapton. ϢereSpielChequers 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I've made the image more prominant. Apparently there's been a blitzkrieg of fictional references because Asteroids in fiction barely mentions Ceres now. Serendi^podous 13:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

replied. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2

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

The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

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

–Whatamidoing (WMF) 23:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi, it's been awhile since we talked, I think? I mostly remember you as the person who inspired me to create my guestbook. Anyways, I saw your response to the NPP letter was "thanks but no". I was wondering if you would be willing to explain why? I'm mostly just curious, but I also try to listen to opposing viewpoints because I don't ever want to feel like I'm living in a "bubble" again. I think NPP could have more support, but I'm willing to listen to your perspective. Clovermoss (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss, I've not signed the letter, not that I fully agree with Visviva as there are some aspects like CorpProd where I would go for a more deletionist approach. But overall the letter does strike me as deletionist, especially the daisies in a sewer analogy. For me the issue of what should change and in what way is more important than just getting a commitment for change. I think we went down the wrong path with the creation of draftspace - the promised collaborative editing didn't emerge there because most tools and attention focus on mainspace. Also I think the bigger problem is that it is difficult to edit on a smartphone, hence some of our skews especially geographic ones. The cheap smartphone jibe I'm sure wasn't intended to criticise people from parts of the world that rely on smartphones, but it comes across that way to me. So I don't see that we disagree on NPP needing more support. rather on the direction that that support should best take. My view remains that we need to make things more difficult for spammers, easier for goodfaith editors and more efficient for patrollers. It could be done, but there are elements that that I can't see either the WMF or the deletionists being happy with. ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers Thank you for your reply. I'm glad I read it. I can tell you gave it some thought. Honestly, I agree with you on the "daisies in the sewer" analogy and what you've said about smartphone editing (see what this edit itself is tagged with - I've been doing a lot of experimenting with the app lately). I lean somewhere between immediatism and eventualism myself. I think that people are frustrated because they're burned out essentially, but maybe I'm wrong there. I do think there should be greater communication between the WMF and the overall community, though. I will say that I have been pleasantly surprised with the interactions I've had with WMF staff on my talk page. Clovermoss (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Clovermoss, My thumbs are too big for smartphone editing. I have two edits by smartphone, the second took 15 minutes and was reverting the first. However I'm aware that there are generations younger than me who have grown up with the mobile phone and I'm fairly confident that eventually we will have something that works well enough for the generation that grew up with calculators and similar technology. But it needs the WMF to be nudged. I agree that the NPPers are using those phrases because they are burned out rather than worse reasons, that's why I politely declined to sign rather than tried to get the document rephrased - I'm also conscious of being too late to the table to be able to amend the letter. I'm not surprised that your interactions with WMF staff have been pleasant, even when the WMF was at its worst, some of the individuals there were polite and well meaning. I'm aware of the change in less than a decade from the WMF that was to the WMF of today, which though it can still come across as harsh and even harassing, when it does now I hope it is mostly out of ignorance of the community rather than the situation of a decade or so ago. ϢereSpielChequers 20:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I will say that my experiences with the android app have made me more fond of mobile view. Previously when I edited with my phone I would almost exclusively use desktop view. Mobile view actually has more functionality than the app, so I'm more fond of it than I previously was. If you're interested, you can look at User:Clovermoss/Mobile editing. It's still very much a work in progress but it highlights some of the issues of the app. I dealt with a text scramble issue for awhile where I would have to type very slowly... but if I changed to a normal speed, this would happen: [2]. That edit was 7 minutes in the making. I do think it's important that mobile editing is improved because there are more people who have cellphones than that have computers. There's also what should be the convienence of editing basically anywhere. But I will say that my interactions with the WMF about glaring technical issues with this has been great. There's some other things I'm wary of, like the perfect edit quality box and no help resources linked anywhere (something really should be done about that), but I still think things are going in an overall positive direction from where they were. Clovermoss (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a smartphone, and I promise various people that I'll check it at least once a week. I used to have a tablet for several years, and I occasionally edited Wikipedia on that using desktop view. But these days I'm strictly laptop, so for me the smartphone opportunity is something that others are going to have to fix. That said, I have a welcome I use: Template:Welcome training and I'm conscious that I can't really use it for mobile or V/E editors, only those who use the classic editor on desktop. So at some point I need to create V/E and mobile versions. ϢereSpielChequers 21:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a nice template. If you want, I can see what it looks like on my end for mobile if you think that would be useful. Stuff like barnstars don't display, but some templates tend to show the text even if it doesn't show any images... so it might work. I can test it on my talk page and take a screenshot on the app and in mobile view if you want to see how it would appear that way. Clovermoss (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just fyi, there's a Mobile sidebar preview gadget in Preferences that gives you a one-click see mobile view of any page, works on templates too. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Interesting. Just mobile view or does it show how things look in the app, too? The latter is mostly what I've been experimenting with lately. Clovermoss (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen the app...I think the toggle is just to the mobile view. Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like it. I'm assuming that mobile uses V/E rather than the classic editor. So presumably we'd need a different version for mobile rather than make the existing template more complex? ϢereSpielChequers 17:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers Suprisingly enough, it's actually impossible to use VE. You would think you could. You have to edit via source. There's also some interesting syntax highlighting. But stuff like replying on a user talk page is like the reply tool with a reply button. What tends to be the issue is using source and then things not nessecarily displaying. Clovermoss (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that ping by the way. I forgot about how it automatically pings someone on their own talk page too... a phabricator ticket was started to get rid of that. But I'll try to remember not to ping you because that's your preference. Clovermoss (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

So I just tested it and it turns out mostly fine, just simpler formatting and the ocassional unnessecary indentation. There also isn't the cookie image, but images in general don't display on talk pages so that's not unusual. Clovermoss (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For WereSpielChequers!

I hope all is well. I'd thought I'll show appreciation for all your hard work around here and for all your kindness! Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks A.S. Brown, things are well with me and mine, and I hope all is well with you and yours, and much thanks for the barnstar, always glad to see someone notices and appreciates my little tweaks ϢereSpielChequers 13:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Uptick in edits?

On one very raw statistic, we seem to be getting an uptick in edits Wikipedia:Time Between Edits gives us the interval between every ten millionth edit, and at least a couple of pundits were expecting that to fall back a bit post COVID. The latest batch of ten million edits took the community just 52 days. That's looking more like the editing levels of 2010 than of 2019. Thoughts Iridescent or anyone else? ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish bureaucrat chat

Hi WereSpielChequers, I have started a bureaucrat discussion for ScottishFinnishRadish's RfA. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish/Bureaucrat chat. Thanks in advance. Acalamari 01:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I'm back. ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

RfA Metaphor

Is RFA looking like a driving test with a backseat crowded with test examiners arguing about the criteria for a test an original by you or is it from someone else? I find it a great metaphor to describe RfA and when I use it in the future I want to properly attribute it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is an original by me, first used by me some time ago. It was a train of thought started by various threads comparing RFA to a driving licence (I passed mine at the age of twenty, so it had a fifty year expiry date). But it isn't a description of every RFA argument, in the current case I use it for the debate as to whether tenure requirements should be one year or two, not whether the candidate had a former account. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What's a metaphor for a driving test where the candidate jumped three red lights during the test and the half dozen examiners say "Never mind, he didn't grate the gears when he changed, let's pass him." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

Do we need such a metaphor? I've been an opposer in some successful RFAs, including at least one where the admin turned out very good indeed, and another where the admin subsequently crashed and burned quite spectacularly. I've just had a quick look at the latter one and the crat had an easy job of it - over 95% supports. But once the 7 days are over it is time for opposers to AGF - even if the cratchat is ongoing because the cratchat is about determining the consensus, not about reopening the RFA and having a group of Crats weigh the evidence and assess the candidate ourselves. ϢereSpielChequers 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Mistake

ScottishFinnishRadish had nothing to do with wikiHow, as you've indicated here [3]. I made a comparison with myself and my previous editing experience in the RfA, so maybe that's where you're getting that from? ScottishFinnishRadish's response to everything is best answered with Q6. Clovermoss (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, yes my bad. I'll strike that comment. ϢereSpielChequers 18:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. My perspective in regards to the wikiHow stuff is that it gave me some idea of how technical things worked (wikilinks, basic user communication, signing comments, etc) and that's one of the countless ways a new editor could have familarity with this. I still don't believe it's rocket science because I was able to figure it out easily enough as a 12-year-old at wikiHow, too. There was a lot of stuff I still had to figure out that was Wikipedia-specific and I really don't want to underemphasize Nick Moyes help there. Because he helped a lot. Personally, I'm cool with disclosing the accounts to certain people (there's two because I forgot the password for one) but I don't think I should have to if I was ever interested in running for RfA (which right now is a definitive no). It's not a Wikimedia-related site, for one. It'd be weird to set a precedent that's it okay to judge people for what they did as a preteen off-wiki.

I had considered RfA as a potential option before because I dislike the idea of saying never (which is still the case) but I've also personally felt like a not quite yet for quite awhile. [4] I also dislike the idea of social rejection because I have dealt with more than enough for that for a lifetime (see Jehovah's Witnesses for some background to understand what my early childhood was like). I still stand by my perspective that ScottishFinnishRadish wasn't really doing anything inherently suscipious as a new editor. I go into this a bit more at WT:RFA if you (or any of your talk page stalkers) are interested in that. Clovermoss (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no-one wants to judge others on off wiki edits unless those are WP related. Especially if those are preteen edits - we know that people change faster in their teens than in later decades. ϢereSpielChequers 22:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello there. I am most grateful for your rating: many thanks.Vortexionio (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You are most welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello WereSpielChequers: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, WereSpielChequers! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Seasons' Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi by Luca Signorelli is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello WereSpielChequers: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello WereSpielChequers: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)