User talk:FOARP/Archives/2021/November

Please reconsider

Please read my arguments in Articles_for_deletion/Sonderkommandos_of_Einsatzgruppen and reconsider your conclusion. Slav70 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonderkommandos_of_Einsatzgruppen . Slav70 (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Romualdas Giedraitis‎

Why did you end the discussion? The consensus wasn't reached, but clearly the discussion was heading towards the move. Please reconsider the withdrawal and let us achieve a consensus. The resolution needs a more general approach, and I will try to propose some during the weekend Marcelus (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The move discussion had already been open for a long time - much longer than the seven day minimum length. The last comment in the actual RM discussion (I am aware there was discussion further down the page outside of the RM, though this too has not seen much commenting since 15 October) was on 16 October - nearly a month ago.

Nothing prevents a new discussion, with a move rationale more clearly based on Wikipedia policy, and guidelines, being opened. It might also help hitherto uninvolved editors join in to open a new RM discussion. Any new RM should also ideally be advertised at the relevant Polish and Lithuanian projects, as well as perhaps the Military history project. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Geostubs and GEOLAND

Hi FOARP, I saw your comment on that AfD I started today, about unreferenced geostubs, and was wondering whether you can help me out a bit. I'm not entirely sure how to go about checking for the "legally recognized" criterium of GEOLAND. Where would I look for this kind of information? Take for example these three unreferenced Algeria geostubs: In Belbel, In Kemelet, and In Isendjef. All clearly fail GNG, but In Belbel can be found on Google Maps and in GEOnet Names Server (which I assume is not considered to be sufficient, just like GNIS), while the other two can be found in neither Maps nor Geonames. How can I go about trying to verify these places? Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lennart97. There are a number of different standards for whether a populated place is legally recognised, but probably the closest one to being accepted is whether or not a location has a government of its own (e.g., it has a mayor and/or a local government). In the case of these three places, we have only bad sourcing (GEOnet Names Server is unreliable for whether a place is populated or not and should not be relied on by itself for what the name of a place it) and so if you can't find anything else about them on e.g., Google Books or JSTOR I'd would simply WP:PROD them. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I was mainly wondering whether there was a more rigorous way to BEFORE before nominating for deletion, but it seems then that there really isn't anything else to do. I think I'll stick with AfD when there is at least some indication that a place exists (in this case, the first of the three) and use PROD if there isn't even that (the other two). Lennart97 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lennart97 - I can sympathise. Important parts of the GEOLAND guideline are still very open to interpretation so it's not easy sometimes how to proceed. It's also obvious that any deletion takes way, way more time that was ever taken creating the article (some of these were pumped out at a rate of ~3 or more a minute) which can be very frustrating. It is clear, however, that maps - and especially Google Maps - do not support notability, and we should not have unreferenced or badly referenced material that cannot be improved. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND

You've made a number of comments on AfDs to the effect that, per WP:GEOLAND, an inhabited place is required to be legally defined in order to be notable; this really isn't the case. There's an entire bullet point saying "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". The fact that populated places with legal recognition are presumed notable doesn't deny the antecedent that populated places without legal recognition are presumed non-notable. Moreover, there are plenty of articles on obviously notable places that aren't legally defined municipalities (in California alone, we have Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Slab City, the Inland Empire, the East Bay, the Delta, et cetera). jp×g 02:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ve always tried to be clear that a GNG pass is also possible. However, in AFD, almost always the argument is “Keep - it’s populated”, which is simply not what GEOLAND #1 says. FOARP (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RfA?

Have you thought about becoming an admin? You've got a lot of experience, with a good balance between content writing and the backend, and you're calm and thoughtful in discussions. I think you'd be a good candidate. Fences&Windows 13:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the encouragement Fences and windows. I have thought about it but I'm under the impression that people will likely oppose someone with fewer that 10k edits and less than 100 articles started. I've been thinking that when I get to that level, which should be in the next ~6 months or so, I'll put in for an WP:ORCP and see what people say there. I guess I also have to come clean about:

• the time I got a temporary block on Basque Wiki due to a misunderstanding caused by my using Google Translate and then got angry at the EU Wiki admin who did it - in my defence the block was lifted and I did apologise.
• I used to delete stuff from my user talk page, mostly DS templates that I thought unnecessary, but the last time I did that was early 2019 in relation to a DS template posted in response to this DELREV discussion.
• I did oppose the Daily Mail ban at the second RFC (I didn't hear about the first RFC), which is something some editors seem to consider a demerit. Not because I think the Daily Mail is a good source, but because I thought blanket-banning sources was the wrong way to go and the assessment should be made on a case-by-case basis, and that more general advice should have been issued for Tabloid sources rather than targeting the DM specifically. I'm making my peace with the whole general reliability RFCs now they have been applied more widely.

OK with nominating me after that disclosure, assuming I pass ORCP when I've got enough content work under my belt? FOARP (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If those are your worst skeletons then you should be fine! I have some sympathy for the argument of case-by-case use of the Mail, especially for older editions, and I don't think being in the minority in a debate is harmful to RfA prospects - it's more how one goes about the debate.

I think you're too modest; you have much more content creation under your belt than I did when I became an admin (despite my higher edit count then) and you've been registered nearly as long. You've got several GAs and DYKs. RfAs fail when editors spot signs of poor judgement, poor temperament, hat collecting, or a lack of understanding/experience of content creation, none of which apply to you. Providing you lay out your track record in building content, helping with deletion processes, and contributing to noticeboards, I think you should be fine and I suggest you can skip ORCP. I'm happy to wait until you feel ready; I turned down the first suggestion that I run. Fences&Windows 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Encouraging to expand stubs

I have seen that you were concerned a bit about the editors creating stubs. I also see this as a little problem (if I as a reader am interested in a topic and just get a phrase to read about it, it is disappointing) and would like to tackle it. Best of course while leaving everyone editing as before but creating a new possibility to gain some recognition for expanding articles. The first recognition comes with a stub, even if the stub is only a one-phraser. Following this, one needs to expand the article significantly and find a hook or bring it to good article status to be able to gain some recognition. What about if there is some sort of recognition for bringing a stub to an article of several sections? This would encourage editors to expand stubs, enhance the wikipedia readers experience and leave others who are creating stubs in peace. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could suggest some recognition for bringing stubs to C or B status? To bring it to GA seems rather difficult, but to bring it to C or B seems achievable for many editors. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have found some temporary solution for my concern and will take your talk page again of my watchlist. I have installed the rater tool and am uprating the articles I assume qualify for it. I have also seen there is Wikipedia:Take the lead!, which also helps to alleviate my concern for now. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Imia/Kardak

An editor has asked for a Move review of Imia/Kardak. 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. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Imia/Kardak → Imia

Disagree with your closure with all due respect. As you can see here, when I relisted the move request a second time, I called it as "no consensus". After that yet another strong oppose !vote was registered taking it even farther away from consensus. The oppose arguments were as strong or stronger than the support arguments, so the article should have retained its title and the closure should have been "no consensus". Please either reopen the request or reclose it as "no consensus" and move the page back to its previous title. Thank you for your consideration in this matter! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paine Ellsworth, I understand your concern here and I did read your re-list comment in my close. However, with so few new !votes following your re-list, there was no sign of a movement against moving such as would overturn the strong numerical advantage that the move !votes had, nor where there any obvious way their arguments were so out of line with guidelines/policies to the point where it really be said that there was no consensus to move. The move argument argument was based on a straight-forward, if possibly simplistic reading of basic policies - there was no great error there. This is particularly the case when we consider the desirability of the guidelines and policies being simple and easy to apply. The simple, basic nature of their argument also explains the brevity of many of the move !votes, and indicates the strength of their case, not the weakness of it. An RM discussion can be closed by any editor in good standing, including one whose assessment of the consensus might not coincide with your own. The closer is not bound by the assessment of the re-lister. A further re-list really would have looked (and would look now) to a lot of the editors there as a simple refusal to accept a clear consensus by the closer. FOARP (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

such as would overturn the strong numerical advantage that the move !votes had

There was a numerical advantage had by supporters, but it was in no way a "strong" one, and it's not just a count as you know. I thought the oppose rationales were stronger, which made it more of an even "count", which is of course "no consensus". I completely disagree with the rest of your assessment above, with the exception of:

An RM discussion can be closed by any editor in good standing, including one whose assessment of the consensus might not coincide with your own. The closer is not bound by the assessment of the re-lister.

At no time did I argue otherwise, so I don't know why you even mention it. Of course, any discussion can be closed by any editor in good standing, and you are an editor in good standing. That is not contested. Nor do I contest that your assessment does not coincide with my assessment. They obviously do not coincide. Nor have I even slightly indicated that you are "bound" by anything. I think you should reevaluate the rationales/arguments and reassess your closure. It is my hope that you will find that those who opposed the page move have stronger arguments than you previously thought. That's all I ask of you. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A further re-list really would have looked (and would look now) to a lot of the editors there as a simple refusal to accept a clear consensus by the closer.

There was no "clear consensus" in that request. And I have not asked you to relist the request. My first choice is for the request to be reopened with a clear recommendation that the RM be closed by an experienced admin – someone who has been vetted by the community at RfA. That's why I didn't close it when my seven-day relisting ran out. I thought it to be too controversial a subject for it to be closed by a non-admin. My second choice is for the move request to be reevaluated by you and re-closed as "no consensus". These are just my opinions, nothing more. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I am mentioning the relationship between re-list assessments and closes to indicate why my close departed from your re-list assessment. We made a different assessment of the relative strength of the argument at that point. I have re-read again the discussion thread to see if there was anything I missed in my close, but all I see is what I described in the close: the oppose !voters focused mainly on casting doubt on the numerical evidence supporting the WP:COMMONNAME analysis but they did not convincingly rebut it by e.g., presenting conclusive numbers showing that Imia/Kardak was the common name, and WP:COMMONNAME was only one leg of the move argument which stood also on WP:SLASH and WP:CONSISTENT.

It is of course a controversial topic but the discussion had obviously run its course and was ripe for closure. I really doubt that a close by anyone, admin or not, would have avoided a challenge to the close, which are so regularly made in RM discussions related to disputed territories. I at least had a full close in mind and was ready to write it at the point this discussion dropped to the bottom of the RM backlog. WP:DIY is an important rule. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for rechecking the arguments! SLASH could have been resolved with a new title like Imia–Kardak or perhaps Imia–Kardak dispute. COMMONNAME could be applied either way, because the previous title, Imia/Kardak, was used in several cited sources. CONSISTENT often bangs heads with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And use of common sense is also an important rule that keeps Wikipedia from taking sides in territorial disputes. We still seem to be at odds on this one, so it would be a good idea to get other editors to review the move request and closure. I still think the closure was not reasonable. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 13:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It is true that some alternative names were suggested, but these were not adopted by the !voters, even when given time to consider them. Plumping in favour of one of them would have essentially been me casting a super-vote, justifiable really only when choosing between multiple equally-bad options. That Imia/Kardak was used by some cited sources was discussed - but how many in the context of thousands of potential mentions? That was not fully addressed. A search of a database of higher-quality sources, with clear numerical data from that compared to Imia alone, might have clarified this. Indeed, other stuff exists, but we also have a duty to be neutral. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"A duty to be neutral." How can a closure that ends by siding with one country in a land dispute be considered neutral? How can a "no consensus" move request that results in a page move be considered neutral? Imho it can't, tho' again, I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 17:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It is neutral because objective criteria were used to select the name it was moved to, based on pre-existing, non-arbitrarily-selected guidelines and policies. I am not exactly sure what the second part of your comment means. If you're saying that I made a biased decision because you think the result was a "no consensus", then I would say that "no consensus" was your interpretation, but that intelligent people can reach differing conclusions based on the same set of facts. In this case more than 20 mostly reasonably informed editors made their voices heard on the issue, and my reading of it was that a substantial majority of them supported the resulting move in reasoned (if brief) arguments. Of course I apologise if I have misunderstood what you have said. FOARP (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A few more supporters than opposers is not a "substantial majority", especially when the opposing arguments are stronger than supporting ones. I can't say if your decision was biased; I have no way of knowing that; however to rename such a page based upon what wasn't even a rough consensus does make me wonder. If I'm wrong and the Move Review board endorses your closure, then you will have my sincere apology. Thank you very much for your civility in all this! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 18:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As promised, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. It's evident that you are right and I am wrong. Best of Everything to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi PE. No apology necessary, I never had any doubt that your objections were honestly intended and out of a genuine assessment that the close should have resulted differently. I do think, though, that you should have identified points on which the close was actually unreasonable before bringing the review. Maybe it's me coming from a legal background, but I would say an unreasonable close would be not just a wrong close, but one that no reasonable closer could make. If you had identified specific points where the close was actually one that no-one should have made (e.g., stuff that was obviously factually wrong, powerful arguments that had been ignored), then you might have successfully overturned the close. If I had to do the close again I would have done the same close but covered the arguments about WP:WIAN - I did not cover it because I thought the discussion about it did not really lead to any specific conclusion in this case, but I should have said so.

I see you've withdrawn the move review, I'm not sure it can actually be done as although ProcrastinatingReader did not do a bolded !vote their comment might be read as a !vote to overturn, and where there's at least one vote in favour of overturning I'm not sure the review can be withdrawn - PR, it's up to you whether you want the review to go on or not. Personally I'm OK either way. FOARP (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t mind either way; PE’s withdrawal is fine with me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: oh no please don't apologize. You believed in the right of your arguments, so no need for that. ProcrastinatingReader, I am hoping no hard feelings of your part? Again my apologies for the tension of the moments with P.E. Wish you all a beautiful day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Content disputes are just content disputes, and generally they're a healthy thing so we end up with the best possible results; no hard feelings of course. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is given to you as a recognition of your diligence, scrutiny, precision and community service in closing a difficult RM on well-reasoned grounds, like how uninvolved editors too have acknowledged. Thank you. -- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have left the discussion but I am hopeful that someday Wikipedia may finally use this opportunity to align the last article in that topic area with wp:neutral rules and in line with how the rationale was applied consistently to every other article in it. Good day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this SilentResident, however I think you should be aware that if I had voted in that RM I'm not sure I wouldn't have supported moving to a page about the dispute, and the title of that page might well have featured both names depending on what the name of the dispute (as opposed to the name of the islands) actually is. I think possibly the dispute (as opposed to islands) really is known as the "Imia/Kardak dispute", but there was no high-quality data about this produced in the RM to show this. I think the data on the islands being more commonly referred to as Imia than Karnak were solid, but if the dispute, or at least the historical military crisis, are split out of the article the issue will have to be looked at again.

However, my close was about assessing the consensus as it stood on the page, not about my own assessment of how it should have turned out. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. However I advice that more attention and caution is given when making such proposals, either by us, or by others.

• First of all: double-name or multi-name formulas are out of the question, not only for geographic articles but even for Dispute articles as well. If a Dispute article is ever to be made for Imia, it should follow carefully the naming guidelines and same rationales as other articles already do, as to avoid constituting (again) the lonely exception in that Topic Area. Everyone knows that single names are always preferred in the English Wikipedia for such articles (i.e. Senkaku Islands dispute) even though high quality reliable sources do exist that use multiple names to refer to them. (i.e. Senkaku/Diaogu dispute).
• Secondly, in addition to above, more issues are bound to emerge if someohow things were different, and the guidelines allowed multiple names on titles. This is due to the pairing of two names generating more problems stemming from the use of slashes (/) and dashes (-) which give them entirely different meanings to these names, not supported by any facts nor sources. Slashes imply relationship of words (Imia/Kardak) where the one name is related or an evolved form of the other name, while dashes imply that they are rival parties (Imia-Kardak) whereas Imia is the one party of the dispute and Kardak is the other party of the dispute. Clarity over ambiguity has always been a priority in Wikipedia.
• Thirdly, even though Imia already exists and a separate article is to be created about the Dispute surrounding it, its title will have to be consistent with the title of the original article, I am afraid. Otherwise it is a WP:POVFORK of one another. For this reason, Imia's dispute should be titled Imia dispute, like how Senkaku Islands's dispute is titled Senkaku Islands dispute and so on. You won't see unecyclopedic abominations of titles like Senkaku/Diaogu dispute or Senkaku/Diaogu/Tiaoyutai dispute for obvious policy-compliant reasons.

Proposals about highly politicized and sensitive topics are always welcome and I will gladly support them, as long as they are in line with wp:neutral and the naming rules/guidelines, especially in a topic area where neutrality is a difficult, yet, the most important of all goals. Thank you again for your time, hard work and is really a pleasure to read every single one of your comments around and talk to you. Good day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gravedancing

Nice essay. Well done. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to ask something regarding finding sources and citations.

Hi, FOARP. Remember me from the deletion discussion at Battle of Pichuna. On that discussion I saw you brought out multiple sources from googlebooks.com or archive.org and I was quite impressed. As I was searching on google I could not find even half of them. So I wanted to ask you how do you search or find any source or books on some topic which you don't know about. Thanks in advance.Hiensrt (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi hiensrt, thanks for getting in touch. Part of my job (patent attorney) means getting good at using search tools so some of the techniques I use there help in doing searches for references. In that search I was using the Internet archive text search function that allows you to scan the optically-recognised text of all the books in their library. This isn’t perfect but it’s an increasingly powerful tool given how many books they’ve scanned and done OCR on. I found most of them by doing different searches for the names of the people involved in the battle. It seems that most sources don’t mention Pichuna but more mention the name of the guy who was killed in it. Using speech marks to limit the search to a specific phrase or full name (e.g., "Nilkanth Nagar" ) was also very useful.

To access the full text search feature go to the internet archive website, click on the archive search-box, and select “search text contents” in the menu. If I was going to do further searching on this topic I would look at alternative spellings for the names of the places/people involved as obviously they can be spelt in different ways. I can’t read or write Hindi/Urdu/etc. but obviously there may well be relevant texts in those languages. Also, the histories linked to, particularly Jadunath Sarkar’s, seem to be referencing earlier books and it may be worth finding out what those books actually say. E.g., the Urdu book Tarikh-i-Rohela by Rustam Ali mentioned in Jadunath Sarkar’s book. FOARP (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your response,I was aware of the text mode for any book didn't utilize text search over whole site. And about the book, that book I presume you are talking about Later Mughals is actually written by William Irvine and Jadunath Sarkar merely edited it, and also somewhat completed the work of Irvine. About Tarik-i-Rohela, I am sure it will be considered primary source and little usedful for citing on wikipedia.Hiensrt (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

All the same it helps to know how accurately the secondary sources are reporting what the primary source, and it can also help to identify other sources that rely on it. FOARP (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Go for it (RfA)

I urge you to stand for RfA as soon as you can, as per my reasoning at WT:RFA (#redalert). There is a pressing need for new Admins, the pipeline has virtually ground to a halt (Wikipedia is on course for a record low year in that regard). It is beyond obvious the reason people aren't standing is not because of anything that actually happens at RfA these days, it's because people have somehow become convinced certain myths are in fact real. A candidate with your experience and commitment is not even remotely going to have a hard time these days. You more than meet anyone's sensible idea of minimum requirements, and everyone can see now that ArbCom isn't afraid to yank the power away from people who abuse it, even once. As it should be. The standard is high for a reason. People who don't like it, they still have the option of being a regular editor. And if that doesn't appeal, maybe they weren't at RfA for the right reason, and genuinely did see being an Admin as something it isn't. I am confident you will sail through. You already have a nominator that thinks you'll do fine (F&W). Go for it! Trunk Master (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S., if this is your concern, I actually think the only reason you're not "passing" the optional poll has more more do with the poll respondents wanting to ensure candidates of today have it as hard as they did (or wish it still was) than your actual chances at today's RfA today. I urge you not to see the opposition of a whole three editors prevent you from standing as soon as practicable. I guarantee that you won't even get any opposition for not listening to three people saying don't run, and indeed, you might get even more support given those three users are hardly what the community at large thinks would know a good Administrator when they see one (one is an editor whose history would definitely mean they can't pass RfA, one is a defrocked Admin, and one is an Admin under an interaction ban with a women). The only thing you need need show at RfA to pass, is that you're smart enough to see the wisdom in this observation, but have the good grace not to give it as one of the reasons that swayed you! Trunk Master (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I honestly didn't read these as oppose votes, they looked like support votes to me. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that Trunk Master has been blocked as a sock, so you might not want to consider his advice.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Way ahead of you there Jackattack! FOARP (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Pearl River

I do seem to be coming away from a much different take-home message from Talk:Pearl River#Requested move 14 November 2021. The absence of bolded "oppose" !votes is a red herring. The argument for the move is based on long-term significance, which was questioned by the comment about the delta region, and an argument about usage, which was undermined by the clickstream data. – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala, thanks for getting in touch. I read your comment but my issue was that this was weakening but not a rebuttal, nor obviously intended as a rebuttal of the point about whether or not the Chinese river was the primary topic. The subsequent !voter not endorsing this point was also a weakening aspect of that argument. All the same I'm OK to re-open the discussion if you want - more votes wouldn't hurt. FOARP (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the clickstream data wasn't really compatible with a primary topic with respect to usage. The subsequent !vote consisted entirely in the text "Support per nom" (+ signature), and that doesn't count for much. Relisting is probably the best thing to do in such a case generally, but I'm not sure if this will attract any more participation here: the discussion had effectively stalled four days ago. – Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, will leave as-is. FOARP (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Rockypoint, Wyoming

I've been wondering if someone would start making bold noms like that. Good to see we have some people actively working on cleaning up that area; probably only a few hundred thousand more microstubs like that to go through but it's a start. Due to the app I'm currently using my IP is hopping uncontrollably all over the place at irregular intervals, so I may not be able to follow up on things at the moment. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)