Congratulations, Premeditated Chaos! The list you nominated, List of Alexander McQueen collections, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for The Dance of the Twisted Bull, introduced: "In 2000, Alexander McQueen ditched Givenchy to sell his label to the Gucci Group, who were far more appreciative of his subversive talents. To prove his worth, his first collection under Gucci would need to make some serious profit, so for his nineteenth collection McQueen tamped down on the theatrics and went commercial. The Dance of the Twisted Bull is a searing-hot exploration of bullfighting, flamenco, and sexuality that reportedly drove sales up 400%."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. My name is Rich Recco. I am writing you because it appears that you may have changed my recent edit to the 3000 miles to Graceland page. I made an edit about writer credit. I can prove that I wrote the original screenplay by myself in 1998 and I had no writing partners on the script. My edits to the wikipedia page are completely truthful. The director tried to take credit for my script after making minimal changes but he was told he would lose arbitration because he didnt change enough to warrant a co writer credit. I only later agreed to give him co writer credit because he told me that he wouldn't direct the project and after I saw how bad the changes he made were I didnt want the blame. If you need proof that I wrote the full complete script first by myself I can provide it for you in this link below from the copywriter office when I registered the script in 1998 under my name: Richard Recco.
I would appreciate it if the edit I made to the wikipedia page remained. Thank you for your consideration.
Technically speaking the username policy (relevant bit linked here: Wikipedia:REALNAME) says I should block you until you verify your identity to the Volunteer Response Team. We have this policy to prevent people from impersonating or harassing real people. I believe you're acting in good faith and I don't wish to scare you by blocking you, so please send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org letting them know you are the real Richard Recco and would like to verify your identity (don't send scans of any ID or anything - they'll let you know how to verify).
Wikipedia reflects what's verifiable in reliable sources. By reliable I mean things like newspapers, books, magazines, etc. I'm not commenting one way or another about the truth of your story, but unfortunately, if it hasn't been reported by a reliable source, we can't put it in an article. I'm sure you can see why, right? Otherwise someone could just say whatever they wanted about you and put it on Wikipedia and you'd just have to live with that. We don't work that way.
I did check before reverting you the first time and I can't find any reliable source that reports anything but you and Mr. Lichtenstein as some form of co-writers.
A copyright registration doesn't prove what you said. It just means you registered the copyright in your name. For all anyone can glean from that, you guys co-wrote the script together in 1998 and put it solely in your name for whatever reason.
I reached out to wikipedia and received a response by Geoffrey Lane. He suggested that I forward a 3rd party source article that can back my claims. So I sent him an article from the LA Times from Robert W. Welkos who interviewed me a week before the movie came out which reveals my process for coming up with the original idea and writing the original screenplay process.
(I would be happy to forward you the article if you would like to see it for yourself. Please forward an email to send it if You'd like)
Please also look at the credits of the film which I received first position writers credit, and Lichtenstein shares last position.
Geoffrey Lane also said to recommend a suggestion to have it edited. My suggestion would be : "Richard Recco wrote the original screenplay on spec and later shared credit with Lichtenstein after changes were made to the final shooting script"
"I reached out to wikipedia and received a response by Geoffrey Lane. He suggested that I forward a 3rd party source article that can back my claims."
This is exactly what I said you needed. If you have a link to this LA Times article, please post it here so it can be used in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to say that you wrote the original script and Dennis has the co-writing credit on the final product. Thanks for finding that LA Times source, that's exactly what was needed :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP user possibly circumventing partial block
Back in September, you partially blocked User talk:MauriceHoward for only removing whitespaces and not making substantial changes to articles.
I believe they are still doing this, just under an IP now, User talk:146.113.128.115.
They've started to move category tags around while deleting white spaces, but not changing the categories, so it looks less obvious.
You can see here that MauriceHoward was doing all the edits to this page, and now it is just this IP. I would bet it's the same person.
I think it is likely to be the same person. However, from a review of his last bunch of edits, it looks like they fall on the acceptable end of the end of the cosmetic spectrum. He's no longer just adding spaces. He's adding appropriate categories and reorganizing categories to be alphabetical (which isn't essential but does make things more editor-friendly). It's also not at such a volume that it's disruptive. At this point I don't think anything needs to be done, unless he reverts to the previous whitespace-only behavior. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was deleting an expired draft by User:Feetfeet 341 and was looking into your block of this account. After your block, they were identified as a sockpuppet of User:Pow!333 who has continued to sock. When I was looking into articles that Feetfeet 341 edited, I came across User:24.93.30.47 who was making very similar edits. They received a block for 3 months for disruptive editing but, as an IP editor, no connection was made to Pow!333. But since you seem familiar with the sockmaster and sockpuppet, I was just suggesting that you also keep an eye out for any IP accounts that might be drawn to disruptive edits around children's literature. Just wanted to give you a head's up in case you have any content like that on your Watchlist.
Thanks Liz, I'm not sure if I do but I will keep an eye out. Cheers and hope your summer is also going well! :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Convicted felon" in the lead
I don't personally have a problem with including the term in the opening line of a BLP, if it's appropriate. I started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard in order to get more inout from the community. Feel free to weigh in, thanks. Wes sideman (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you specifically feel that the usage at the Skilling article was inappropriate? If so, how? And why would you not state as much in your edit summary rather than making a specific, inaccurate claim about the outcome of a discussion? ♠PMC♠ (talk)13:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say I appreciated your comments about how GA isn't supposed to be...to paraphrase you - so "onerous". I've been waiting on a 2nd GAN since March I think? - on Robert Todd Lincoln - but ((shrug)). I don't have a problem with the new sort order or whatever kind of order the noms are sorted into on the main page. We'll all get our articles reviewed/passed/failed eventually. So anyway, thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My frustration mostly stems from people acting like the backlog is a huge mystery. It isn't. We're ratcheting up standards, publicly shaming people for posting "inadequate" reviews, and the sort order no longer prioritizes older nominations. Hence, backlog. It's literally that simple. The next step is either to accept the reality we've created and stop complaining about it, or to make some changes in order to ease the backlog. Unfortunately, the GAN community seems unwilling to do either, and I'm just tired of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol yeah I don't quite understand why my GAN goes up&down on the list... And I do think some GA regulars are somewhat peremptory in their GA assessments and in their behavior towards others. Keep on keepin' on, I get the being tired of the constant whatever, runs me down too. I dropped one article from my Watchlist because another editor was there to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I just got tired of fighting all the time. Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sort order is now based on review to nomination ratio, and also prioritizes people with no GAs. The thinking was that this would incentivize people to do more reviews to increase their ratio and their place in the rankings. Unfortunately, the rationale behind the ranking is pretty opaque (evidenced by this conversation), so it doesn't really work. On top of that, the higher your actual number of both reviews and nominations, the harder it is to change your review ratio - doing just one more review is phenomenally impactful if your ratio is 1:2; less so if your ratio is 125:126. It also has some technical issues in that it doesn't count GAs which have been promoted to FA - my numbers look far better than they ought to because many of my GAs have gone to FA.
The long and short of it is that it was a good idea but it has had unforseen limitations and side effects, and I think we need to go back to sorting by date. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The sort order situation is interesting to me, because of the whole divide-by-zero element -- it definitely doesn't seem to me from the RfC that 'prioritizing people who've never interacted with the process before' was actually the intended outcome, but it's hard for me to decide personally which is better between that and the intention of 'prioritizing experienced nominators who are net positives in backlog reduction'. There are strong arguments for either.
I find just how big the impact was interesting as well, because it never intuitively seemed to me that people prioritized reviews by ranking in the first place outside backlog drives. By how interesting the article is, yes. By someone's own intuitive sense of how big a backlog contributor they are, yes. Ranking? Not sure, and my impression in turn was that they tended to work at both the back and front while ignoring the middle, rather than that they worked from the back entirely. It seems a lot of people pay way more attention to the raw sort than I do, though. Vaticidalprophet06:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it definitely doesn't seem to me from the RfC - I couldn't point you to where it was, but I'm sure I recall some discussion at the proposal drive mentioning the benefit of pushing brand-new people to the top. I actually agree with that aspect of the new sorting. First-time noms are likely to have a higher fail rate, so it's better to fail them quickly rather than making them wait 6 months for a review that's like "actually this sucks, dumbass, here's your quickfail". I could support a list that was like, "first-time noms by date, then everybody else by nom date". ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the stats that someone posted somewhere in the morass of WT:GAN were a 50% failure rate for new nominators post-rearranging, which is...shocking, really, especially when you consider people are afraid of failing non-quickfails (when probably another quarter or so of nominations should). Inasmuch as this is a benefit, it occurs to me that many nominators who now fall to the very bottom of the new sort order (people with 0 reviews and >0 GAs) are also people who could benefit(?) from it. Vaticidalprophet07:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I just looked - there's 681 nominations currently and 192 instances of the string "(0 reviews," on the page. Almost 30% of nominations are by people who have never done a review. Better than I thought, but boy that's a shameful number. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have 114 reviews & 8 GAs. Regarding the "0 reviews" there are some who have no reviews but quite a few GAs - I'm not sure taking a look at "0 reviews" by itself is a meaningful/pertinent data point? But anyway, thx folks for responding to my query. Shearonink (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until we as a community agree to deprioritize/blacklist nominations by people with dozens of GAs who refuse to ever review, nothing will change and those nominators will continue freeloading off the work of others. If everyone acted like they did, nothing would ever get reviewed, but from my experience they simply don't give a damn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the article after a discussion. I have concerns about it as it meet the Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Please, restore the article. 39.34.175.42 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the big blue box of Add topic? please, explain the big blue box. I am unable to understand what you want to deliver. 59.103.221.236 (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To undelete the article, i have provide the following references. Although, they provide not much coverage of the subject but a reference gives a review about the series. The notability is further proved by the notable award win of the series which includes Lux Style Award for Best TV Actress.
Weebly is a fansite for the actor Faysal Qureshi, which is not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability or supporting facts.
Reviewit.pk appears to be a blog that permits people to submit articles, it isn't reliable
Dunya may be reliable, I can't tell, but only trivially mentions The Ghost so it isn't significant coverate for the purpose of establishing notability
Awards don't automatically grant notability, there has to be significant coverage about the thing getting the award for it to establish notability
I'd be willing to accept Masala as reliable, but it's hardly a review or significant coverage - it's barely a paragraph, and ironically it says "the show did not receive much attention"
Trivial mention in an interview. Nope.
Same as the other comment about awards.
None of the sources are reliable or significant in a way that establishes a claim to notability. I'm not undeleting it and further messages without significant coverage will be ignored. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False titles
Hey there. I hope all is well with you. In your GA review of the Kinks' 1965 US tour, you suggested changing "The English rock band" to simply "English rock band". I said I'd change it but get back to you if I could figure out why some FAs keep the definite article (e.g. Sgt. Pepper, "Hey Jude", "Something", all of which write "the English rock band"). Anyways, after a similar thing came up at OK Computer, currently being discussed on the talk page, I have read a bit more about the issue of false titles. Popcornfud has an essay about it, and in flipping through a copy of Garner's Modern English Usage (pp. 816–817), it sounds like the idea of dropping definite or indefinite articles came out of newspapers and magazines, but the use of false titles in formal English is by no means a requirement. Tkbrett (✉)14:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I never realized it was an issue of so much dispute! I learned something today. I personally agree with Safire's comments quoted in that article about how it feels stilted, but if it's proper in BrEng then it is what it is. ♠PMC♠ (talk)18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this coming up extensively at the GAN for Prehistoric religion, where I used a lot of false titles that were pointed out as not-really-proper in the BrEng the article leans to. I've watched out a little more for them since, and I've been inclined to agree now that false titles can read a little awkwardly when overused. I think ideally you'd switch between them in the same article dependent on context, but that would probably cause an engvar cataclysm... Vaticidalprophet09:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Premeditated Chaos. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Bit Meddler, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Recognition by a notable film festival is a credible claim of significance. Thank you. BangJan199922:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC; hope you're well! I know fashion is an area of interest of yours, so I thought you might be interested to know that I dipped my own toes into it today, writing Tamás Király inspired by a recent Articles of Interest episode (if you're not already a fan of that podcast, you should absolutely check it out). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love Articles of Interest! Avery Trufelman has a voice like butter, I would listen to her forever. The article looks good! Nice work. ♠PMC♠ (talk)14:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've been meaning to turn Articles of Interest into an article and DYK it; I might get to that after DYKing Király, and would be happy to collab if you're looking for something to write! DYK ... that the podcast Articles of Interest devoted an entire season to preppy fashion? is the only hook that immediately comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the ask, but I am a notoriously flaky collaborator and I'm sort of wrapped up in McQueen right now. I know you'll do great work on it though :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reviewing New York Biltmore Hotel for good article status. I will do some final checks but I wonder if you can give it a look. Please let me know if you see any issues I may have missed when you get time. I would appreciate your help on my first GA review. I will read through much more thoroughly tonight and tomorrow as well. Bruxton (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you picked a good one for your first go. Epic's articles are always crisp, well-researched, and thorough. There's very little chance of significant issues. I'll try to have a look over it tomorrow. Offhand, I suggest doing Ctrl+F for "contain" and if there's more than a few hits, give him a friendly poke about overusing it; it's his pet word the way "even" tends to be mine. (It's slightly off-GACR in that it's not a fail if he declines to do anything about it, but it does read a little nicer.) ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I am familiar with Epic from his many DYK contributions. I have found issues about three or four times in DYK reviews and they were minor. Bruxton (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton, had a look at the GA comments and it all looks good to me. As a pedantic note, because I am pedantic about this particular thing, compliance with all of the MOS is not actually required by the GACR. The only MOS that a GA must comply with are lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, per criteria 1b. Everything else is nice to point out, but technically optional for GA rating. There's also no requirement for infoboxes to be filled out to any level of completeness. I don't oppose pointing these things out at GA reviews, but when I do, I try to note that they're outside the GACR, so if the nom doesn't want to do them for whatever reason, it's not technically a failure criteria.
I am planning on creating a page for the Louisiana State Senator Gerald Boudreaux and got a notice saying you deleted a page that was for him. Could I get some info on that before I start creating the page. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was created by a user named Billy Hathorn who was a serial copyright violator (the page linked in the deletion reason is his CCI). We got to the point where we just started preemptively deleting anything he created where he still had a large percentage of authorship, because his issues were so pervasive. No prejudice against any normal editor like yourself creating a new, clean version. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help at GA, I really appreciate it! I see you left a message if you could be of any help with FA, but would you mind helping me with something a little different? If I'm going to get the Four Award, the article has to go to DYK; only thing is, despite 35+ GAs and two FAs, I've never done it before. Do you have any recommendations of content that would be good to focus on as a DYK submission?
P.S. Like the band, I see you're also from the Vancouver metro area. Did this nomination perhaps strike a personal (pale) chord with you? Are you maybe even a fan of them? Just curious since I noticed that, I had to ask. dannymusiceditoroops00:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough, I just grabbed the article because it was in the severe-backlog zone and I wanted the points :) My music taste is embarrassingly basic, sad to report I'd never heard of them before I took the review. I didn't even notice they were from Vancouver until I was reading the article.
DYK is really easy in comparison, just try to highlight something neat about the article. The riff-fest quote might be fun, something like:
Or maybe something about the inspiration? I bet it's unusual for a metal album to be inspired by airy 80s rock. You could maybe do a hook based on Constance being dedicated to a couple of grandmothers, but that might be better for an article about the song itself (if it has enough coverage to merit one). ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Constance probably has enough for one, but unfortunately probably not a good one, if I'm being honest. Shame, because it and Secret Garden are the best tracks on it (though they're all incredible). I like that DYK idea. Cheers!
Allow me to also do some musical evangelizing if you will. If you normally aren't that type, Courtney really does have the singing voice of an angel. "Secret Garden" was the first song I heard from them, and it has a killer bassline through the verses as well. If you're looking for something more spacey, Constance is one of the most musically moving pieces of metal I've listened to. Trust me when I say it's truly groundbreaking work in the metal scene Spiritbox have done. :) dannymusiceditoroops00:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will have to trust you on this one, because I am a total pedestrian and metal is unfortunately not my jam, lol ♠PMC♠ (talk)01:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Shipwreck dress still from maybury.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Shipwreck dress still from maybury.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article Oyster dress you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oyster dress for comments about the article, and Talk:Oyster dress/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Theleekycauldron -- Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanted to say that I’ve enjoyed reading the Alexander McQueen articles. I know nothing about the topic, but you’ve made it very interesting to read about. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive
The Multiple Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
We really appreciate that you reviewed a large number of GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.
I had some concerns regarding one particular article that recently passed, as outlined in a comment there from the first time it was nominated that afaik was never addressed. Maybe I just have much higher expectations for GA than what the actual criteria prescribe, but I would have thought a total lack of non-hyperlocal and non-news sourcing and large swathes of text extrapolated from primary statistics and routine trivial mentions would have some impact on an article's status? Is NPOV not impacted by having multiple large quote blocks from non-independent biased sources promoting the subject? JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the reviewer never saw your talk page comment, if they started the review from the GAN page and for some reason never went to the article talk page (although that's not best practice).
GA doesn't assess notability, and any effort to include a notability assessment in the GACR has been shot down. If you feel the sourcing doesn't adequately support notability, take the article to AfD. (I see that it closed no consensus last time, but perhaps with some months having passed, a consensus might form). I don't agree that a student newspaper can't be independent, but I agree they don't constitute very good reliable sources, especially for bolstering a claim to notability.
If you feel the article otherwise doesn't meet the GACR, you could always take it to GAR. Personally, I would have failed it at GAN on the basis that the majority of the body is assembled from quotes (I did as much at Talk:Rachel Amber/GA1), which does not, in my opinion, constitute good encyclopedic writing. It is fixable if the author is wiling to paraphrase them into encyclopedic prose - you could also try bringing that up to them on their talk page and seeing what they say. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, thanks for the response. Regarding student newspapers' reporting on their own university, we've had very strong consensus that they are not independent (as documented at WP:RSSM). Anyway, I know GA doesn't assess notability, and I'm not trying to get the article deleted right now. What I'm more curious about is how GA status can be attained when so much text is cobbled together and extrapolated from trivial and/or primary and/or non-independent mentions, since that would seem to conflict with WP:PROPORTION and NOTNEWS? I've made suggestions to the nom and other NFL project members in the past regarding use of trivial mentions and bare stats as the bases of articles, and the extensive use of quote blocks, and they categorically do not agree that that is an issue, so I suspect they wouldn't be receptive. Also, is it typical for GAN reviewers to be directly solicited from projects the nominators are themselves heavily involved in, or for the same reviewer to review all or most of one nominator's nominations at one time? I tried to search the GAN archives for this after noticing this activity on so many pages on my watchlist lately, but couldn't find anything that seemed relevant. In this case it's around 16 gridiron player GAs passed since ~Aug 18 by this reviewer/nom pair. JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GA is ultimately subjective. Reviewer roulette has always been a bit of an issue there. You might get someone like me, who won't pass anything under 800 words because there's almost no way it can be broad. You might get another reviewer who disagrees and will pass the article. Personally, like I said, I wouldn't have passed Vehmeier - I don't think assembling a body from quotes is encyclopedic writing, but GACR doesn't mandate following MOS:QUOTE. It might be worth having a discussion about that at WT:GAN, to be honest, because I think it's flatly incompatible with good writing but that's another animal.
There's no prohibition at GAN (or FAC for that matter) against soliciting reviews from people. I have been both the solicitor and the solicitee at both GAN and FAC. There's plenty of reasons to do it - sometimes it's the only way to get a review in a timely manner, maybe you want a reviewer that knows about the topic, and sometimes you just like working with a specific person. There is an expectation that the reviewer should provide appropriate criticism and not rubber-stamp anything, regardless of their relationship with the nominator. If you suspect that rubber-stamping of articles that don't meet the GACR is what's going on, you could take it to WT:GAN for input. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PMC, I appreciate your looking into this and explaining the practical standards, since I know there's a lot more nuance and latitude to GA reviewing than the criteria let on. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know those are fine, I just thought it was kind of timely considering the discussion at GAN about quotes kind of veered into copyright questions, and DYK seems to be even more of a stickler about copyright. JoelleJay (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The single quote is not a copyright issue, though, and I remain unconvinced that the overquoting is either. It's just poor writing. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think overquoting is a copyright problem either (and of course not the single quote), but I wanted to know your thoughts on it given the GAN discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what thoughts you want me to give, to be honest. The article passed GAN, so it meets the DYK criteria. The quote hook is not a problem, copyright-wise or DYK-wise. If you think the article doesn't meet the GACR, open a GAR; I personally don't have the appetite. ♠PMC♠ (talk)01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I think Nwangwu may be notable. He’s prominent in the large Nigerian diaspora in the US. His news site, UsAfricaonline is one of the few reliable sources of news for Nigeria.
AfD may be more appropriate.
—A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)04:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC -- Independently of the above, I declined this; I think our understanding of what falls under G11 is somewhat different. I don't think notability is currently demonstrated in the article, but this isn't an area in which I edit so I will leave you to decide whether AfD is the way to go. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly. G11 doesn't assess notability, it assesses promotionalism, and I don't see how you can read that article as anything other than a resume promoting the man. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm aware of what it says and don't require it to be quoted to me. It doesn't say it cannot be used on notable subjects (and in any case EA didn't believe he was notable anyway), just that rewriting may be preferred - and nobody opposing deletion has bothered to do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk)18:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Evdokia Kozhevnikova
On 17 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evdokia Kozhevnikova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although she never finished her dissertation, the fieldwork of Soviet ethnologist Evdokia Kozhevnikova(pictured) provides a valuable record of the culture and the language of the Georgian province of Svaneti? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evdokia Kozhevnikova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Evdokia Kozhevnikova), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Some years ago now, you moved "Mottin charentais" to "Charentais Mottin" with the edit summary "correct name per fr.wiki". The French article is at fr:Mottin charentais, and shows a cheese with a printed wrapper reading "le MOTTIN CHARENTAIS". Adjectives normally follow nouns in French. I think the article should be at "Mottin charentais". Would you mind moving it back?
Huh, yeah, I'm not sure what my logic was there. I double checked fr.wiki and that article hasn't been moved either so it's not like I was following a name that's now been changed... anyway, I've reversed it. Sorry about that. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking forward to seeing more of your future work. I do not have much in my pipeline either so I can understand that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will let you know. Hope you are having a good start to your October. I kind of hate that is already this far into the year lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I love October (blanket weather <3), but it definitely feels like this year has gone by in a blink. Hope you're having a good one as well :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. I do love the fall. I'm more so annoyed that I have not gotten what I wanted done this year, but there is still time. I should be more optimistic about it. Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if you would ever bring the Oyster dress article through the FAC process? Apologies for the random question. I thought it back when we were having the conversation and I forgot to ask. I know I keep saying that I'll work on a dress article, and I will one day. Just intimated to work on a completely different subject area on here lol. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, isn't that always the way? I always think I have months and months and then suddenly it's fall or winter and I'm running around asking where the spring went. Oyster dress is indeed on the docket as well as the companion to Irere. Clothing stuff can be a lot of fun, there's a lot of analysis of some of the more unusual or famous garments. Is there a particular dress or designer you're interested in? ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. It does always feel that way, but it doesn't stop me from getting frustrated about it lol. I have debated on doing the dress from Letty Lynton as I find the history fascinating, especially given how much of an impact it had even though the film itself became unavailable. I do enjoy Adrian's work in general.
I'd also be interested in doing a more modern outfit like the jumpsuit Lil' Kim wore to the MTV Video Music Awards. An article (here) recently came out about it. I'll put more thought into my next project(s) when my current FAC is done. I have had a few false starts with the Letty Lynton dress so I am just waiting for when I am more comfortable with starting something new. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, red carpet fashion is a fun area. The Lil Kim jumpsuit looks like it'd be a great target, if people are still talking about it 20 years later then it's probably worth getting an article out of. I keep meaning to get back to Cher's Oscars outfit but I got a bit distracted by McQueen midway through. One day I hope I can get enough sourcing on at least one of Lil Nas X's getups, he's so theatrical on the red carpet. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new version has actual references and is properly written compared to the much worse original. I wouldn't be comfortable G4'ing it. ♠PMC♠ (talk)04:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You recently reinstated my removal of social media links that I removed from articles that don't appear to comply with WP:EL and WP:ELOFFICIAL. Yes the social media links are official links, but they already have their official link. Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, specifically the WP:ELMINOFFICIAL subsection, we are to minimize the official links. If a link is available from their main official website, then we don't link it. These sites are linked from their official sites and therefore shouldn't be included. Here's the relevant section "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation." They are linked in both cases (well there's an exception in one because according to their official site that's not their Instagram, but it looks like they made a mistake on their site) in the exact places you always expect social media links to be linked on websites. Canterbury Tailtalk19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no harm done. Both of us have been here a long time, and I still learn new things about out guidelines and policies every week that make me go "oh, okay then". You're likely looking at the initial article one as an article that's had a lot of vandalism in the past and now someone's come along and started deleting things. I see how that happens. Canterbury Tailtalk19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Premeditated Chaos, I am writing to inquire about the possibility of restoring an article on my User Page. The removal was attributed to insufficient sources and content. At the time, I was new to the Wikipedia experience, limiting my activity and resulting in a lack of attention to enhancing the article. I would like to emphasize my increased engagement on the platform and draw your attention to 22 similar articles I've authored, all available under Category:Deobandi Hadith Literature. Additionally, I wish to highlight two significant works, namely Hayat al-Sahaba and Amani al-Ahbar fi Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar, both authored by the same individual responsible for Muntakhab Ahadith. While creating these articles, I uncovered valuable materials related to Muntakhab Ahadith, fueling my eagerness to invest time in its enhancement. With this, I kindly seek your assistance in restoring the aforementioned deleted article to my user page. Thanks.–MinisterOfReligion(Talk)03:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big blue banner at the top of the userpage that asks people to post sources for undeletion requests. Please post your three best (most reliable and substantial) sources about Muntakhab Ahadith. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does refund have to do with the big blue banner at the top of this userpage? Please post sources. I don't consider undeletion requests for people I don't know without sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk)08:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand now. I didn't notice the blue banner because I edit Wikipedia with a mobile device. Regarding the sources for Muntakhab Ahadith:
Education in a 'ghetto': the paradoxes of a Muslim-majority school (ISBN978-1-000-90517-5) offers a detailed discussion within Chapter 5, 'Religious Education.'
This book occupies a fundamental position within Tablighi Jamaat, boasting a global membership exceeding 100 million. Various scholarly publications that delve into Tablighi Jamat have discussed this book, such as Islam, Youth, and Modernity in the Gambia: The Tablighi Jama'at. p. 242. ISBN978-1-107-04057-1.
Thank you. The first and second sources are fine, but you should probably avoid using those last two as they are only PhD dissertations. WP:THESIS gives a little bit of information on why - basically, dissertations usually haven't been peer-reviewed or gone through an editorial process. If you can show that the authors have become known as subject-matter experts or those dissertations have been republished as monographs or standalone books, that usually makes them acceptable. But I've seen enough that I think I can reasonably undelete to userspace anyway. It can now be found at User:Owais Al Qarni/Muntakhab Ahadith. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons:
Only the English and the Turkish Wikipedia entries were successfully deleted.
In general, the articles were edited over time with incorrect information about the person described.
For example, a person who speaks Turkish must not automatically be of Turkish origin (the same is not automatically assumed when a person speaks English or French fluently, but was born in Germany).
The person described may not identify as "female", but in the German version, the description was using the female forms.
Cultural origin or gender are sensitive topics.
The editing over time (since 2008) has showed that too many users/editors have added information based on assumptions.
We are glad that this has finally been understood.
Please delete all the pages referring to "Claudia Akdemir Udenta" and the referenced "NiL Verlag" as well (since the website is not existing anymore).
I'm sorry, but I'm only an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Each individual Wikipedia is independent, with its own policies and procedures, and its own administrators. I cannot delete the pages on Wikipedias in other languages. You would have to follow the deletion policies on those Wikipedias to request deletion of the pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays
Hello, I want to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. I know that we may not have been on the best terms in the past, but I offer you peace in 2024! I have enjoyed your contributions to WP:DYKLightburst (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!
Hi Premeditated Chaos! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Looking forward to reading whatever fashion-related FA you write next! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for Premeditated Chaos, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Huh, yeah, what an odd one. I assumed there was no way we didn't already have a list covering that and went to Category:Lists of place name etymologies to see if it was a duplicate but nope. Kind of cool to see that there's still room on Wikipedia for brand new oddities even in 2024. I think it works well where you put it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you helped me when I had a GAN question a while ago. I am now reviewing a GAN biography but it does not have information about the subject's personal life beyond early life, college and career. My question is does the article address the main aspects of the topic without those bits about where is he now? Bruxton (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefacing this response by saying that I am an outlier on this, and this does not reflect the general consensus of people at WT:GAN. That being said: I'm of the opinion that some topics just do not have sufficient real-world coverage to cover the breadth desirable in what we call a Good Article. There are cases where something passes GNG or some other notability criteria, but the coverage is limited. If all we can squeeze from the coverage of Chuck Compton is a scant 322 words – counting the lead which summarizes the article – then I do not think the topic of Chuck Compton can be a Good Article. (My floor is about 800 words and even that I would typically only consider in extraordinary circumstances). Again: my opinion, outlier, does not reflect community consensus, so take from it what you will. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it and I like your thinking. I come from the DYK corner with WP:DYKCOMPLETE in mind so it bothered me that the article seemed incomplete. I will have to close this one. Happy editing and thank you for the guidance. Bruxton (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the bread crumbs here... Bruxton, PMC specifically noted that their opinion does not reflect consensus on this issue. I recommend you request a second reviewer or I will be nominating the article back to WP:GA immediately after you close it. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Bruxton feels that the article does not meet the GACR, he is free to fail it on those grounds. There is no requirement that he have a second reviewer, and you coming here to insist that he gets one is unnecessary. You can just renominate the article. (I will also note that consensus around length appears to be shifting; at least one Michigan highway article was just delisted for being far too short, and twoothers are clearly heading in that direction). ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I post here now rather than start a thread in a third spot. Sorry for the hold Gonzo_fan2007 - I am a fan of your work. I asked for a 2nd before I saw your message here. For me it is not the length that is a problem, it is the missing bio details. I have not rejected the GAN and I will just wait for a 2nd. The article is put together well and it is in good shape so completeness was my only hangup. Bruxton (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, I was merely pointing out that going to an editor who clearly states that their opinion doesn't follow consensus isn't the best course of action. And I never said there is a requirement for a second reviewer. Did I? I recommended a second reviewer and noted that if they failed it, I would be renominating it (which is the exact course of action recommended at WP:GA and the exact course of action you recommended).
Bruxton, my point is that all of the key details about Compton, which make him notable, are provided. I'm struggling to understand how "Compton got married and had two kids" would suddenly make this article "complete". Obviously Compton did not have any notable details about him outside of his football career. So there's nothing worthwhile to be added to his page here on Wikipedia, right? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. "I recommend...or I will be nominating...immediately"? That's pretty pointed language, and I don't appreciate you trying to act like you weren't trying to bully Bruxton into changing his mind. Following a process is one thing, "following the bread crumbs" to my talk page to snipe at Bruxton for asking for advice is unnecessary.
Regardless, please carry on this discussion somewhere else. I'm not intending to participate in the GAN, so any further commentary about Compton can go there. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Billy Porter Oscars gown on Sesame Street set.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Billy Porter Oscars gown on Sesame Street set.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
There once was a man named McQueen,
whose fashion was nearly obscene
Hid the clothes in some junk
while he went and got drunk
Lost it all to the trash man's routine
Thank you Gerda, we're happy to do it. I wish Vami could see how badly he will be missed. This world is worse without him in it. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not update any citation in Conching. You removed content that was sourced and added unsourced content here, which I reverted. You then reverted me here, again removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. Donald Albury21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in your recollection, my initial revision cited no sources , we talked about tha omission, whereupon I then added the inline citation 'conching room' in the revision. It stayed until December when @Premeditated Chaos reverted back to the original. Q1abus (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your devotion to properly maintaining Wikipedia. Prose is not my forte, but the manufacture of chocolate is. I cited one source, which happens to be a well known publication. @Donald Albury admitted his knowledge of chocolate is of a layman. Q1abus (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC Sorry - I didn't mean to imply any shortcoming on your review. As this isn't the nominator's first FAC, I made the assumption (lazily, as it turned out), that they had just had the 'standard' formatting-only source review, which just goes to show that I am the one at fault on that point. I am not sure they will be able to do all the research and re-writing in the window a co-ord allows them, but I hope it doesn't put them off - it's a good article so far, but it just needs to go a bit further to hit FA level. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, it's all good - it probably didn't help that I had separate sections for nitpicking and the actual spot check. I do feel silly for not reading Harper a little closer though, since it was the only source on that paragraph. That being said, G's a hard worker, I think more than likely she can get that stuff you pointed out incorporated within short order. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a little more care when adding refs, Geonames is user-generated and not reliable.
I actually don't think that place meets WP:GEOLAND. It's not anywhere on the 2011 Census of India (mirrored and easily searchable here) even when you just write "Kampang". The American Geonet database labels it a "populated place" which is their word for "idk maybe people live here, but it's not even a village, so who knows". Based on these, I don't think it's a legally-recognized place, so it doesn't get the GEOLAND auto-pass.
Per GEOLAND, places that aren't legally-recognized must meet GNG to be notable. I made several different attempts to search for this name in Manipur and found no reliable coverage of any kind. I also searched the "poetic name" given in the article, Ningnakhu, and again found nothing. The best I found was this book from the 1800s which refers to Kampang as a "thannah" (alt form of wikt:thana), which is a Hindi word for a military or police outpost. IMO the article should be deleted as failing GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarity. Firstly, I did search that India 2011 Census site as it's on my reliable sources & it was "Not found". Also, I moved that Geonames.org on my checklist page from Reliable to "Not reliable" section. So Geo-place articles do not automatically qualify for an article-I had forgotten about that. Wondering if I should take directly to AfD, or just do PROD instead? Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Premeditated Chaos! The article you nominated, Oyster dress, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PremeditatedChaos, I hope you don't mind my message. I just wanted to thank you for your reply. I teared up a bit typing my review, and I didn't know what you were referring to—had to look it up—but, then teared up again. It's a lovely way of putting it.
Hey Serial. What you wrote was a fierce tribute to Vami and to the humanity behind our project, which is one of the things he most valued about Wikipedia. I loved it and I know he would've too. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Premeditated Chaos! The article you nominated, Boundary Fire (2017), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful Guerillero for shouldering the burden with me, and all the reviewers who worked to make the article the best version of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for Eye (Alexander McQueen collection), introduced: "In September 1999, Alexander McQueen staged Eye in the middle of a hurricane threatening New York Fashion Week. Other designers cancelled, but McQueen forged onward with a controversial collection that crossed Middle Eastern traditions with Western sports and fetishwear. Jeweller and frequent McQueen collaborator Shaun Leane notably chimed in with a yashmak veil forged from chainmail. Reception was mixed: the overly-theatrical show overshadowed the clothing, and the theme predictably drew accusations of misogyny and cultural appropriation. In retrospect, Eye remains one of McQueen's lesser-regarded collections, outdone by much of the rest of his body of work. Nevertheless, I find it of interest, if mostly as a reminder that not all of his experiments succeeded." - ... also some more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
![[1]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Claudia_Udenta.jpg){kind=link}
