User talk:Fermiboson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:41, 22 December 2023

November 2022

Hello, I'm DarkAudit. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Chris Carmack—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. DarkAudit (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it appeared to be the same IP which added "mediocre" to the page. Not knowing much about the subject I presumed the edit was similarly unconstructive. Fermiboson (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, someone got to it before I did, I see. WP:OOPS Fermiboson (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Fermiboson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

At Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin (t) 11:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fermiboson (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pacific Maritime Security Program has been accepted

Pacific Maritime Security Program, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Passenger pigeon (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Method of virtual quanta has been accepted

Method of virtual quanta, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging

You tagged Andi Prifti, an article that's been around a while, as WP:A7. I declined the tag. I don't think that an editor with only two weeks experience here should be tagging any pages for speedy deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FSS Independence has been accepted

FSS Independence, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to All-American Canal: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Sheep (talk • he/him) 17:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I believe I have been doing so. Fermiboson (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving during AfD

Hi, you moved Ramaiah Institute of Management Studies into the draft space during an open AfD discussion. While this is not strictly speaking prohibited, it is discouraged as it can cause all sorts of confusion and problems. It has been moved back now, so the matter is back on track; I'm just mentioning this for future reference. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for the information. I will take note in the future. Regards, Fermiboson (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Contents of philosophy

A tag has been placed on Contents of philosophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thank you for being congenial in your questions. May I please request you to archive the discussion at AN? Thank you, Lourdes 08:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. How do I do that? Fermiboson (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} at the top and bottom of the discussion. Thanks, Lourdes 08:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will do that. Fermiboson (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lourdes 09:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-case COI declaration

I don't think this deserves a place on the userpage, as this COI is isolated to one edit, extremely unlikely to ever come up again, and my edit was against the COI. However, as noted in the edit summary of this edit, I am a member of the IKS, whose mentions I removed from the article due to lack of notability. Putting this here for permanent record and transparency. Fermiboson (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lourdes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a bit unexpected. I hope you still enjoy Wikipedia! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… very much unexpected excitement. I am going to continue editing, after all it would be unreasonable to expect never to encounter drama when my activity is largely on the backend. I just didn’t expect it would be this soon. Well, I suppose I’m a witness to a piece of wikihistory now! Fermiboson (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the Wikipediocracy forum on this I can see yet, but it may come. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello Fermiboson, the arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank God. Fermiboson (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For showing courage and by your actions helping reveal a highly egregious, long-standing abuse of community trust. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I'm not happy that this is necessary, but I suppose it is a good thing in the end that a long-standing sock was revealed. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for examining and summarizing the accounts with less than 100 edits that were blocked by Lourdes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, just doing what I can. Fermiboson (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity/Gravitational wave

Hi there! You wrote me on my talk page, that you think that I was practicing on editing the top note of Gravity wave and Gravitational wave. Well I was not, and I dont know how you arrived at that conclusion. But most importantly I think that the current note "phenomenon of general relativity" is much too vague and does not give an easily understandable distinction to gravity wave. I would like to see if you have an alternative that gives a better distinction or just reinstate the descriptive note that I tried to give, trying to flash out the difference of waves that these articles are about. Thank you. Sincerely, Nsae Comp (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much apologies for the note, I used Twinkle to post the TP message not realising you were a regular, and thanks for telling me to resolve the issue (feel free to remove the notice from your TP if you wish to do so). I think that "how gravity can propagate in waves" is a bit of an inaccurate description of gravitational waves. The purpose of the disambig is to differentiate between people who already know what they're looking for, so if someone is directed to Gravity wave after, say, reading a news article on LIGO, they know it's about GR and when they see the note they will be able to figure out that fluid dynamics is not what they're looking for. "For [phenomenon/item/object] in [broad area/category]" is a pretty regular pattern for these tags, and I feel that there is no need to specifically attempt to describe gravitational waves in half a sentence. Ditto for the other direction. Fermiboson (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Car speed and energy consumption

Dear Fermiboson,

Thank you for your interest in this topic. If you look up the Holmberg references given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#And_while_we%E2%80%99re_on_the_topic_of_essay-like_articles%E2%80%A6 , you see that Holmberg agrees with the Wikipedia article from the MacKay UK Govt report.

What do you mean by "plenty of OR"? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the collegial reply. I’m currently on mobile and I’ll respond further in detail later, but in short, I’m not disputing the factuality of the derivations in the article, but WP:NOTTEXTBOOK applies. Fermiboson (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "...is factually incorrect to boot.", so i thought you disputed the factuality, can you update that on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Car_speed_and_energy_consumption? 2. "OR" is to me an undefined variable, = 0? I look forward to you reply, thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LARA

Hi! I see you have something against Liberland project and its people or is this only my assumption. Can you please be more specific why you are deliberately deleting LARA - Liberland Amateur Radio Association, other than your personal political preference? I've stated the relevant sources, you can check who the members of organization are, so it's not fictive one. What more does this article need to be compliment? DelphiColor (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any opinion on Liberland, the ideology behind it, or microstates in general. I am nominating it for deletion (which is different from it actually being deleted) because I do not think it meets our notability guidelines for organisations, which is required for the organisation to have an article on Wikipedia. As far as I can find, no secondary source has given any coverage to the organisation you mention, which is what we need to determine inclusion into content. If you have such sources which are reliable, secondary and independent of the organisation, please feel free to show me, or add it directly to the article as references. You are also able to state why you think the article should be kept according to our notability guidelines at the Articles for Deletion (AfD) page, which you can access from the banner at the top of your page. Note that Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote any cause or organisation, we exist only as a repository of information already reported in secondary sources.

I understand it can be frustrating to have your article nominated for deletion, or if you have strong feelings or connections with the subject (if you do, please also read WP:COI). Thank you very much for approaching this in a civil manner. Fermiboson (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for your explanation. Well, it's true that not many global independent sources cite it besides some individuals in their blogs, as the state that it is based in is,... well sort of out of ordinary, and sometimes it is a taboo topic. What I can say form observations is that LARA is significant organization in state of Liberland, beside its chess club and some other separate non-gov organizations. So main sources that link to the organization are Liberland based. If that's biased source... maybe, but there are also other well known organizations in other countries that are promoted by govt that they are based in, otherwise they wouldn't be known outside their countires. And since the country it is based in is also not recognized by any UN country and has limited ties with other govts, also LARA isn't member of any international organization.

I added the article as I was editing List of amateur radio organizations and I know some details about this organization, so I thought that it will deserve its own article, as for example Aruba Amateur Radio Club has. I can also limit the content to bare minimum, if this content looks like it is promoting organization, which was not my intent. DelphiColor (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The concern was (and still isn't) promotion, it was (and still is) notability. With regards to Liberland, since as you say it is not a recognised government, we treat it as a self-published source. If you have further questions on the reliability of particular sources, you can take it to WP:RS, but I honestly doubt you'll get much of a different answer. I have no opinion (and also no wish to gain one) on whether mainstream sources treat Liberland as taboo, or censor it, &c. but, as I said above, Wikipedia reports on what is said in those mainstream sources, not some underlying "true value".

As an aside (this isn't relevant to the notability of this article in particular but I felt the need to mention it) we do treat governmental or government-associated organisations, which receive no coverage other than governmental promotion, as non-notable in normal countries. If independent news sources pick it up, that's another matter. We don't give special deference to any government. Fermiboson (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I apologize, if I made wrong assumptions about you and I admit I was a bit frustrated. Today I read reports that Croatia did something horrible to Liberland settlers and endangered their lives and that's why I was also a bit on edge. Anyways, if you think the site about LARA is not notable enough then yes... delete it, just please keep it on List_of_amateur_radio_organizations page. I think in that page I made clear enough that those are other organizations and not "national" ones. Thank you for understanding. Have a good day. DelphiColor (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message and vandalism

See diff Fermiboson (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please don't send message for me. If you would like to end your insult. But there is no problem, I have given your report to the admins. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has laws and is not your personal property. Verddieta (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite funny, given that I was the one that filed the report. Wikipedia does not have "laws", it has policies and guidelines, several of which you have violated. Further discussion here is meaningless; please keep everything you wish to say on the AN/I thread. Fermiboson (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that you have the illusion of being a godfather. I don't want to see any messages from you. You have broken the rules by making personal rules for yourself. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fearlesscontent

Would you believe twelve years of WP:COI edits? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With an edit summary in 2018 that clearly indicates autobiographical issues as well. I suppose we can never know what really slips under the radar. Fermiboson (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get rollback

Surprised that you weren't a rollbacker already. Let me know and I'll grant, since I have no doubt that you can distinguish vandalism from good faith edits. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm actually not quite clear on what the difference between rollbacker rights and the Twinkle rollback/restore version option is, could you please enlighten me? Fermiboson (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback works faster than Undos (which is what twinkle uses for restore or "rollback" if you don't have rollback rights), since it works only on the latest revisions and reverts ALL edits made by the same user. If you use Twinkle to revert vandalism, then having rollback would make your workflow faster. And also, having rollback gives you access to Huggle, a tool that helps you patrol recent changes and combat vandalism. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. I'll make a request on the appropiate page. Fermiboson (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have to be requested at that page. I haven't stressed the difference from rollback to a revert yet: rollback is for obvious vandalism only. The second and third points in the section below should elaborate a bit on this. If you have any questions while using rollback, feel free to ask me :) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Fermiboson. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fermiboson (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

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

Administrator changes

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Fermiboson. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Fermiboson (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G5

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I declined your G5 request at Shuja'iyya ambush. Violations of Contentious Topic restrictions aren't currently included in G5, and the subject of adding them to that criteria is the topic of an on-going request for comment. I know the template exists, but it should not be used until the RFC concludes and they are officially added to the CSD criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. I was not aware of the RfC until recently (was told off-wiki to use G5 for ARBPIA violations). I have since stopped the use of db-gs. Fermiboson (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Das

Hi. I declined to speedy this under WP:G4 as it isn't identical to the deleted version. That said, I would encourage you to pursue an AFD on this article, and ask the admin who closes that to salt the article if it closes as delete. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 330: / Line 330: @@
 :Understood, thank you. I was not aware of the RfC until recently (was told off-wiki to use G5 for ARBPIA violations). I have since stopped the use of db-gs. [[User:Fermiboson|Fermiboson]] ([[User talk:Fermiboson#top|talk]]) 22:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
+== [[Vipin Das]] ==
+Hi.  I declined to speedy this under [[WP:G4]] as it isn't identical to the deleted version.  That said, I would encourage you to pursue an [[WP:AFD|AFD]] on this article, and ask the admin who closes that to [[WP:SALT|salt]] the article if it closes as delete. ~ ''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="color:#0cc">ONUnicorn</span>]]''<sup>([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])</sup><small>[[WP:P&amp;S|problem solving]]</small> 17:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)