User talk:FormalDude

Archived discussions:   1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,  10,  11,  12

Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

This user is aware of the designation of the following contentious topics:

that DS notice.

I am not complaining about the notice. I just want to know how you did it. I recently attempted to give one and failed miserably. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: I may not be the best one to give advice on this, considering I failed pretty miserably myself on your talk page lol. Typically I use User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb, which is a user script that allows you to generate the DS template for any topic with a couple of clicks. Apparently it is not working for the COVID-19 general sanction topic though right now, as it produced an error when I tried using it on your talk page. So this time I just copied and pasted the template manually from Template:Ds/alert using the code {{subst:alert|covid}}. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher): I use subst:alert|topiccode as well. I'll say that it really helps to look through WP:AWARE and ensure the user isn't already formally aware. Adoring nanny was technically already 'aware' due to participation in a recent Arb Enforcement request. Unless I'm creating the talk page, I always check the history of the page using the tag filter "discretionary sanctions alert". For reasonably active editors, I'll also check their contribution history with the same tag filter, to see if they've notified anyone else about DS in that topic area. For active editors, especially ones who have been editing for a while in the topic area, I'll look their Wikipedia space contribs and ctrl-f for "arbitration" to see if they are aware that way.

Best of luck to you as you engage in this boring work to buttress a broken system! Firefangledfeathers 03:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't care, searching in four different places isn't exactly easy, and as I said I don't mind. Best of luck to you both, thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As a general matter, how does one find the topiccode? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny Think there is a list here (please correct me if I'm wrong here) Justiyaya 16:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for GA review

Hi there FormalDude. Hope you are doing well. I'm reaching out simply to ask if you'd be interested in reviewing the article Nicole Kidman for GA status. I noticed you recently reviewed and promoted the article Timothée Chalamet to GA status (an article I watch and occasionally edit), which is why I was hoping you would be interested in reviewing this article I've been working on for a while. I nominated it a while back and at one point, a user did begin reviewing it, but for some reason they withdrew. I understand if you're not interested or are too busy at the moment, but if you are willing, I'd appreciate the review. Don't feel obliged to respond, but if you have any thoughts regarding the article, please do let me know. Thank you for your attention and have a great day. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Film Enthusiast! I am actually participating in the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, and I've been meaning to review at least one more, so this is perfect. Thanks for reaching out, I'll get started on the review soon. ––FormalDude talk 02:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

One promotion edit, but also

In response to your ping over here, see this. This account specifically was also a bad username, they were copy pasting promotional content from a website with the same name as the account. Usually accounts that also have a promotional name and also make promotional edits get spam blocked without any questions. 11:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

• Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

• News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election

• Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"

• Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?

• Deletion report: Ringing in the new year: Subject notability guideline under discussion

• WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured

• Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021

• Gallery: No Spanish municipality without a photograph

• Obituary: Twofingered Typist

• Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial

• Essay: The prime directive

• Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?

• In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing

• Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"

• Serendipity: Pooh entered the Public Domain – but Tigger has to wait two more years

• Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Revert of my edit at Joe Biden

You reverted my edit here: [1] The sentence I put back, Biden completed the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; during this, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control, causing Biden to face criticism over the manner of withdrawal, with allegations of poor planning., was longstanding text that had been there for months. The sentence you reverted to was one Neutrality made up yesterday. You need to restore my edit because it reflected longstanding text. If neutrality wants to change longstanding text, they can go to the talk page.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: You did not address any of the issues mentioned by Neutrality in their edit summary. As they said, this text needs consensus for inclusion. The fact that it has existed without objection does not constitute consensus. ––FormalDude talk 04:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats not how the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works. If I went and made a change on Joe Biden and someone reverted, no one has the right to restore it without being discussed first. Neutrality made a brand new content inclusion and I reverted. At that point it goes to talk page, not restored by you, and now I'm expected to challenge it. There is also no consensus for Neutrality's edit, the custom is to go back to longstanding text. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Neutrality's edit was not a bold one. They simply removed problematic content on policy-based justification. You cannot just restore that content without explanation. ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Any edit that changes the text is bold. If content on a highly watched page such as this one is left unscathed for months it's WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. What Neutrality did was make change, I reverted to the status quo, and now we are supposed to go to talk, but no hers is restored and the status quo is abandanded. Lets say Neutrality removed the entire second paragraph of the lead, would this same principle apply for her revision to be kept until everyone else had a consensus that the entire second paragraph was needed? Or would we just go back to keeping the second paragraph until Neutrality could garner a consensus to remove it? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not be restoring your edit as you did not address the problems with the content that Neutrality mentioned in their edit summary of the removal. ––FormalDude talk 04:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

How about it removes content that is cited in the body, has been extensively covered in RS, and it's been there for 5 months. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Q

Hello. You shut down an RFC and proposed to remove another one that just opened. The reason I opened them as RFC is because both Talk pages are basically ghostowns. If I post a normal discussion here, the only answer I'll get is from the user with an history of ownership issues that says "no" to anything I type. Yet this was allowed, and lasted less than two weeks. What's the way to do this with this considered? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: If you're only getting feedback from one other editor, I recommend going to WP:3O. ––FormalDude talk 22:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, just posted on the talk page as a normal discussion. If that's the case (almost no response), I'll do as recommended. Thanks! Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating Foodshed.io Wikipedia Article

Hello@FormalDude:! I am working on a draft for Foodshed.io. Foodshed.io is a company that specializes in local food systems. I found several sources to justify notability, I noticed you had edited the local food systems wikipedia page and I was wondering if you take a look at the draft and offer feedback. I do have a COI with the topic, I will not directly create the article but would appreciate any help from more neutral parties. Thank you in advance!

Ecazart (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ecazart, and thank you for reaching out. I greatly appreciate you declaring your COI in-line with Wikipedia's policy, and I'd be happy to take a look at the article for you. ––FormalDude talk 21:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @FormalDude:! I appreciate you taking the time to look at it, please let me know if you think the page needs any other sources or if you have any questions I can help with.

Ecazart (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ecazart: It looks pretty good, I've made some changes. There is one source that I tagged as primary which needs corroboration by an independent source. Other than that, the article would appear to pass WP:NCORP, meaning it is considered notable for Wikipedia because it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

In my capacity as an article for creation reviewer, I'd be willing to publish this draft to mainspace for you if you'd like. ––FormalDude talk 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good call on the sources, I have two other ones that may be more appropriate. One is from the program website, the other one is from Biz Journals. If neither of these are appropriate, we should remove that sentence.

It would be great if you could bring this to the mainspace for Wikipedia, I appreciate your help on this new page!

Ecazart (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ecazart: The first one is also primary, being from the program website. The second one is perfect, as there is a consensus on Wikipedia that The Business Journals is a reliable source. I'll fix that now and publish the article! ––FormalDude talk 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Great, thank you!! Please let me know if there are any future pages we can collaborate on. Have a great rest of your day! Ecazart (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

invitation to contribute to a draft

I took a look at WP:CANVAS, and I think this is allowed. I would be particularly interested in your input at User talk:Adoring nanny/sandbox/cgr. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Self-harm

Template:Self-harm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Adopt

Would you adopt me? I would like if you adopt me. What are the criteria that I need to meet before you can adopt me? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: I don't have any criteria at this time other than a willingness to commit. If you plan on being an active Wikipedia editor who contributes on a weekly basis at least (which it looks like you are) then I'm happy to adopt you.

How would you like your adoption to be structured? We can have it be more like a program where I give you assignments and offer feedback, or I can simply set up a place for you to ask me questions so I can provide guidance to you as you need it. ––FormalDude talk 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but a few more questions before I say yes.

1. How many does will this 'course' continue?

2. I am actually a little busy in real life, so I may not edit everyday. So is that OK? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:

1. There's not a set length, and it depends how quickly you work and gain experience, but I anticipate we would be working together for at least two months.
2. It is perfectly fine if you don't edit everyday, however, you should aim to edit at least on a weekly basis.

Let me know if that works for you or if you have any other questions! ––FormalDude talk 03:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And one final question. Can I take wiki breaks in between? Is that allowed? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Yes, Wikibreaks are allowed. I'd just ask that you let me know when you're going to be taking a break that is longer than one week. ––FormalDude talk 03:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Would you check your email once please. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Responded. ––FormalDude talk 03:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok so on those terms, I accept to become your student. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Glad to have you! ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude thanks a lot. I am also excited to have you as my teacher. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but can you adopt me twice. For example for this time I select option 2. After completing the adoption, I again want to be adopted but this time as per option 1. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: I've created your adoption school at User:FormalDude/Mentorship/Itcouldbepossible. ––FormalDude talk 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting me as your student. In my previous reply, I have already said my opinion. So I want to select option no 2. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dream (American group) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work on antivandalism. Thanks for keeping the wiki clean. Rlink2 (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And also, I added a new song, if you don't mind..... Rlink2 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Thank you very much! Appreciate the music. ––FormalDude talk 21:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Peter Sellers on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

AMOGUS AMOGUS AMOGUS

AMOGUS BAKA IMPOSTER FROM AMONG US IN REAL LIFE