User talk:SportingFlyer

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello SportingFlyer: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

AFC Welwyn

Hello,

Thanks for your help and advice with the draft article for the English non-league football club AFC Welwyn. I have added some further links to other media articles and interesting information.

I based the format of the wiki page on the other football clubs in the same league, who all have their own pages. (example: Codicote FC).

Because AFC Welwyn has only been playing for one season, it is difficult to find many media stories. I also have a logo to upload, but wiki will only let me do this once the page is moved from "draft".

I have resubmitted, but any further advice gratefully received.

Thank you Sparkytoes (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sparkytoes: I've looked at it again but haven't declined it again. Unfortunately as you say it's a new club, so they haven't really been mentioned much in secondary sources, which is a requirement for Wikipedia - I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't want to see your work deleted. My best advice is to hold on to the draft and see if they generate any more coverage - 11th tier can be difficult though, and it's possible some of the other clubs in the league wouldn't survive a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful. I will continue to add to the page as more reports are published. Maybe a resubmission at the end of the season might work, especially if there is news of a promotion. Sparkytoes (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question

I don't think it matters much who challenges the close because the question isn't "is my interpretation/argument about the RFC correct", it's "is the close reasonable." You can provide your reasoning as to why the closure wasn't a reasonable reading of the discussion, but it doesn't matter much of that's the opening statement or in a statement later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm just frustrated because the people responding so far are reviewing in the context of the opening statement, which is completely different to the reason why I think the close was wrong. In any case it's potentially created a much larger problem for the project than anyone has anticipated considering we're here after only one table was removed. SportingFlyer T·C 01:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

MLBd

Your comment here might need some clarification. Paired with oppose, it seems to mean "There's no evidence that MOS:CAPS is met in this case at all", but is worded as if to mean "There's no evidence the MOS:CAPS guideline covers this subject at all".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, my comment signified pretty much exactly the amount of time I wanted to spend on the situation.

SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Italy v North Macedonia

Could you please explain why it is not acceptable? 14 novembre (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre: Sure. Articles on games need to show why they had a lasting impact, while that was an important match it was not a final or other noteworthy game with a lasting impact yet. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer Should I add more sources? 14 novembre (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If so, of any specific kind? Thank you very much and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Any source that was written a long time after the game would be what I would be looking for personally. SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and kind regards 37.162.165.249 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	. 14 novembre (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

requesting administrative privileges

Some critics of the optional RfA candidate poll have said they don't see any advantages that couldn't be achieved more effectively through other means. I was wondering if you had some concerns about asking one of the frequent administrator candidate nominators for feedback? You can get a sense from their track record how dialed in they are to community sentiment. I appreciate it can be tricky to take an unbiased look at your own record. Nonetheless, have you attempted to see how you measure up based on the various concerns that users have raised at RfA?

Regarding your proposal, I understand you might think it's a perfect way to attract you to volunteer to be an administrator. I have concerns, though, both about the community effort expended in having trial runs versus added benefit, and making the process twice as arduous for prospective candidates, while still discouraging those who don't receive positive support during their trial run and thus leave Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Thanks for the response. I used to be more interested in potentially becoming an admin, and there's definitely times on here where it would be helpful to have the mop. I understand the concerns about a trial run, but my sense is RfA is considered toxic for the edge cases: people opposing on specific grounds which may not have been vetted, where the candidate doesn't have the chance to respond directly. It's also somewhat intimidating to reach out and say this is something I'm interested in. I'd be more interested if there was a more streamlined intake process. I'm not entirely sure what that looks like, but a straw poll, where a potential candidate can receive and accept feedback, is something I'd definitely be interested in, and I don't think reaching out to an admin or two would necessarily prepare someone for an RfA. Perhaps I'm jaded.

In any case though I appreciate your response and you reaching out. SportingFlyer T·C 14:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply which helps me get a better sense of your concerns. Some of the common administrator candidate nominators will work with you to prepare you for your RfA. They're friendly and from what I can tell, relish the opportunity to assist a new promising candidate. Not sure what you mean by a "streamlined intake process"; either you contact one of them, or they contact you if they come across your edits and think you're worth encouraging.

A full trial run is asking 100+ users to duplicate their vetting efforts. There will be some who will tell candidates "why didn't you just proceed with an actual request". I'm less certain but I think there will be some who will tell candidates who skipped a trial run "please do a trial run first". In a world where users have boundless effort to devote to Wikipedia, it would help provide a smoother transition to being an administrator, but I highly suspect in practice that it would be too large of an imposition. Getting feedback from users (who don't have to be admins) that are experienced in evaluating and nominating candidates will, in my view, result in much of the same benefits. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For that beautiful How to AfD 101..!! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the Monday laugh

That IP address looks like a duck wearing socks anyways. from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera was the perfect answer to Daylight Savings Monday. Have a good one! Star Mississippi 12:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• 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 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• 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.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

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:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

John Tran

Hi, do you think you would vote to delete the page John Tran if you saw it in an AfD? I asked on another editor's talk page weeks ago with no response. I ask only because I am unsure if it meets WP:NPOL #2 and I'd rather avoid another Paul Richards if possible. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I just took a quick glance and I'm not sure. There looks to be more on Richards. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Political candidates

I agree with you, but it can be a futile task to debate the long term notability of a political candidate in the middle of election season in the US. It may be better to wait until the election is in the rear view mirror to discuss notability and in the meantime, patrol the article for policy violations. - Enos733 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Closure review for the RfC on lists of airlines and destinations

I wanted to be honest with you regarding the RfC closure review in January and say that yes, I had noticed the discussion that you and others were having on A. B.'s talk page. I'm sorry if I seemed to be plotting against your plan to challenge the close. I had spoken to A. B. about this on their talk page but forgot to contact you. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wide Right II draft

I believe the Chiefs going on to win the Super Bowl shows an “lasting impact” that could justify the page. 131.247.224.203 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)