User talk:ToadetteEdit

Welcome to my user talk page. Here, you can post to me anything, reminding that Wikipedia is not like Messenger or WhatsApp. Sign your post using four tlides (~~~~) after each message. If I post something to you, comment there, and leave a {{talkback}} template here. After leaving the message, consider watching this page or subscribing the thread to stay updated. Inappropriate messages will be removed without notice. Stale discussions older than 7 days will be archived by a bot. When leaving messages, please do not ping me here (see this page for more info), as I will continue to be alerted by the system.
You are new? Consider using Wikipedia's introduction to start your editing journey. All questions are welcome here, or at the Teahouse. For editors with drafts, I am happy to review your drafts by just asking me.
A note to editors: Please do not use the rollback feature except reverting vandalism. All reverts must specify why the revert was made. Please leave discussions intact unless it is a personal attack.
Threads starts below. Also note that these threads may be newsletters, especially from The Signpost

Would you be willing to mentor me for CVUA (take 3)

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.

---

A quick look at my talk page will tell you the main issues I've been having. Thank you and have a nice day. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I will accept this, though I will be busy throughout the week (see note above). I will draft the lessons and so please follow up on your talk page as I will post your CVUA subpage there. Thanks for choosing me! Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 16:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you@ToadetteEdit. How does the whole lessons/training thing work Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Me Da Wikipedian, this is how it will work (subject to change):

• The training will consist of several lessons with questions to see how you understand the policies, especially WP:VAND. It covers processes from reverting vandalism to detecting usernames that are against the policy to tagging pages for speedy deletion to requesting page protection.
• It is better for you to start patrolling the recent changes, because in the lesson, you will be asked to provide your reverts for evaluation. You will also need to provide WP:AIV, WP:UAA and WP:RFPP reports to also be evaluated.
• Note that these lessons will be at stages that will be unlocked after a period has passed and evaluation is complete.
• In the end, you will be given a general test to evaluate your skills. It may take up to a week for evaluation.

Take this to mind that this will take ~1 month to complete, and ideally you should be active during the period, or your course would be canceled. Any questions can be forwarded down here. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have contributed a lot in recent changes patrol, and I have requested like 40 protections at RFPP, and porbably reported 10 or so vandals at WP:AIV. WP:UAA I've only used once, though. And I already have like 250 reverts if you want to look at those, and a talk page full of what I've done wrong Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just wait until I prepare for you the course. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 21:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm waiting...tell me when you're ready. Might not be too active for next 3 or so days but...seems like you won't be either Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you ready yet...It's been 5 days. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Very soon. Toadette^Edit! 10:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It is now prepared here. Toadette^Edit! 10:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Can we start? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you ready to start? @ToadetteEdit Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian, it has already started. Toadette^Edit! 16:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Finished that little thing Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Category:Indoor ice hockey venues

Hi Toadette! Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Category:Indoor ice hockey venues. Two things: one, WT:CFDW is organized by the date the discussion is closed, not the date the discussion is opened.

Two, you closed it as rename, but the target categories all already exist: "merge" is the correct term for what is happening. Would you be willing to amend your close? Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster, I doubt that Pppery has removed it explaining that it was removed since it was malformed, and encouraged to use Qwerfjkl's tool which doesn't work in my browser. I understood that I should apprend requests rather than prepending old discussions. As what I can know that it stated "Propose renaming" but wasn't unaware that it needs merging. Thanks for the heads up. Toadette^Edit! 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion proposed renaming, but I believe there was consensus for merging. There is no rule at CfD that says people must support the proposal. Rename nominations can end with delete outcomes, delete nominations can end with renaming the category, and—as relevant here—rename proposals can end with merge outcomes. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understood but I guess that somebody must have overturned my close without notification, HouseBlaster. I have seen you listing at wp:Closure requests and must have been closed. If it was indeed overturned, let me know so that I could amend it. Toadette^Edit! 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You can personally amend the close, without involvement by anyone else. Just <s>...</s> the word "rename" and <ins>...</ins> the word "merge". Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Toadette^Edit! 11:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Joint Commission of Orthodox Churches

Hi @ToadetteEdit! I saw that you declined my article Draft:Joint Commission of the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches because it's not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Could you please point out what the issue is here more clearly? Is it that the sources cited are not reliable enough, or is it that there are not enough sources?

I am new to Wikipedia, so I'd like to learn how to conform to the guidelines about reliable sources. Havoc219 (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Havoc219! I have decline it specifically because some statements are unsourced and may be challenged if it was moved to the mainspace. I recommend finding the sources that verify the facts made, or reuse citations given that the used sources supports the statement in question, or remove it entirely if a source couldn't be found. Hope that helps! Toadette^Edit! 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ToadetteEdit! I have updated the draft so that all quotes now have a citation. I have also added two additional sources (one to back up the statement that Saint Cyril is seen as a bridge between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christianity, and one to explain what the Antiochene position on these issues was), plus some additional Wikipedia hyperlinks. My intention with writing this article is not to advocate for or against any particular side; I am simply interested in having a Wikipedia article on this important historical event (the formation of and statements by the Joint Commission). One can find a lot of information about it scattered across books, articles, and web pages, and I hope that this article can be a starting point for others who are interested in the history of Christological debates.

Does this address your concerns? Havoc219 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think so, Havoc219. Toadette^Edit! 12:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Alex Bhathal AfD closure

Hi there, I'm concerned this closure does not accurately reflect consensus. While three editors, including the creator, argued for keeping the article, two argued for deleting (including myself) while another argued for redirecting. I'm not sure this was an appropriate or uncontroversial closure. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NACAFD "experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep" and WP:BADNAC "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations...The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes)". If you are making closes you need to respond to editor concerns as well. AusLondonder (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

AusLondonder, how it doesn't reflect consensus (I validate consensus based on how strong are the arguments). In the situation, !vote arguments in the keep and delete are pretty strong (cancelling the creator's !vote while determining consensus). Toadette^Edit! 11:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand by "close call" in The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.. Can someone answer me? Toadette^Edit! 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If as you say both keep and delete arguments are strong how do you find consensus for keep when three editors supported deleting or redirecting and three including the creator wanted to keep the article? AusLondonder (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I should answer later. I must really revert the closure of the AfD. Toadette^Edit! 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is with the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST arguments that prompted to a keep, AusLondonder. Toadette^Edit! 12:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Request on 21:25:56, 27 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Eisbergsk

• Eisbergsk (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wilf Perreault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for your review. This is my first Wikipedia page and I am still learning. I feel that I am close but recognize that I must improve my citations to be Reliable Sources. Please tell me if this is the correct direction I should go.

1) As an example of a reliable source, I just changed the citation for the 2nd reference in the page to the link in the web archive instead of the current location of the page (now is https://web.archive.org/web/20231208025015*/http://www2.uregina.ca/president/art/language-institute-la-cite/wilf-perreault/ instead of http://www2.uregina.ca/president/art/language-institute-la-cite/wilf-perreault/ ) Is this the kind of thing you mean? If so, I will confirm and change all the other online references that I can.

2) For the newspaper articles, I have picture files (jpgs) of all the articles I have cited. If they are not in the web archive, can I add them and then cite them? Otherwise I am not sure how to demonstrate reliability.

3) If I have misunderstood how to make my sources reliable, would you be able to give me a specific example that I could follow? If it's easier could you mention which citations you feel are the most problematic, or which ones are okay?

Thank you so much! Sharon Eisbrenner Eisbergsk (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Eisbergsk (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Eisbergsk! For the first, the source you mentioned is reliable, so it counts towards notability. The second is that, pictures of newspaper text is also reliable and last, if you are doubt about the reliability of a source, you can raise it up on the reliable sources noticeboard, but the teahouse is better than the noticeboard. Can you place all the sources so that I can analyse it here? Hope that helps! Toadette^Edit! 11:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:C+VG Hit award winners has been nominated for deletion

Category:C+VG Hit award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Why did you close this as redirect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2024_Alaska_Democratic_presidential_caucuses

As far as I can see the count was 8-8, a tie. Is there some kind of rule that ties default to favoring redirects? Was it a coin flip? 171.252.37.120 (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is because redirect !votes are by far stronger than keep !votes and that redirect !votes are more lenient on using policy while keeps are simply pile ons to a keep !vote. Toadette^Edit! 11:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

And yes polling is no good than consensus. Toadette^Edit! 11:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Historical American Documents}} close

This shouldn't have been split, it was a major navbox for the topic and was an appropriate format for a multi-navbox. Did you read the last few entries of the discussion (please read them again). But since you closed to split please advise how to go about splitting while at the same time saving the page history. It will also take much time to split and move the four individual navboxes to the hundreds of pages that must be edited (thanks alot), so will need a few weeks to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, I have already replied there, but if you think my decision is unfair, it can be opened at wp:DRV. The first sub navbox should preserve the history while splitting the other and providing attribution. Toadette^Edit! 12:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What I think about your good faith decision cannot be said without a ban (grumble grumble). This was one of the finest maps to the U.S. founding documents on the internet, and if you read the last few comments of the discussion the "delete" votes are addressed and shown to be mistaken as to scope and formatting of the navbox. I just saw your comment at the talk page, and will check if anyone has ideas on the split. The Constitution already has a navbox which pretty much mirrors this one so that can be plugged in somehow. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have amended my closure, Randy Kryn, to a keep. I shouldn't have seen the final comments but I saw that the consensus was split, but just a while ago I read the discussion on the template's talk and one user said that it would be difficult to perform the split. What you said by a "ban" feels me that I am one step closure to a formal discussion, no matter at deletion review or ANI, but I have taken my amendment very seriously. Toadette^Edit! 12:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, what I meant about a ban was about myself getting banned, not you. Your original close took in the concept of splitting but if you notice, and you may have since you changed, that the earlier discussion mentioned and used in the 'split' reasoning of several of the 'split' comments was not about this navbox, as there were no notices given in that discussion concerning it (that discussion was about a separate signees navbox). A 'keep' will likely be heavily challenged at an ANI, but at least give time to point out the complexity used in editor's reasonings. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Toadette^Edit! 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello ToadetteEdit, I'm Moneytrees, and I'm an admin and experienced RfA nominator. I've noticed you've recently submitted an RfA, which will open to voting in a few days-- I recommend you withdraw it for now, as you are very unlikely to pass and are opening yourself up to intense scrutiny. Your recent copyvio warning and partial block would sink a run for most editors. You cannot offset them with your one DYK and articles you've created, some of which have outstanding tags. You also don't have a proven track record in a specialized area or understanding of policy that could otherwise offset them. Your recent ORCP basically recommended against a run, which will be seen as a negative in light of your actual run-- especially given your interaction with Curbon7. I'm not trying to be mean by telling you this, I'm trying to save you from an unpleasant experience: while the process has changed a bit, RfA's are very high scrutiny and can be quite intense. My own RfA is a prime example of this. There's more advice and information at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Again, I recommend withdrawing for now and getting more experience/ understanding of policy before thinking about running again. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 13:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Melanie Challenger draft

Hi, I think I’ve corrected the inline citations as requested. Please check back when you get a sec. Thanks BeacHal1 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi BeacHal1! Did you make sure that all statements are cited? Toadette^Edit! 14:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Regional Ring Road (Egypt)

The article Regional Ring Road (Egypt) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. Unreferenced tag has been up for 5 months. Couldn't find anything with WP:SIGCOV on Google.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No sources, GMH Melbourne? Who has removed the remaining sources? Toadette^Edit! 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the referencing was removed during a copyvio revdel. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Userfied, this damn draft needs to be incubated soon. If no enough SIGCOV is found, then I should request deletion. Toadette^Edit! 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

A story...

I cannot believe what is happening to my RfA, I expect that everyone will oppose me right now if the RFA2024 proposal didn't exist. I see adminship as trust, and that adminship is trust. However, it feels that everyone so far don't trust me. I feel so depressed right now, and feeling that I may go to depression. Here's a summary of my bad story.

It was just a very poor person whose hobby is to surf the Wikipedia. They have lots of edits and have many permissions. It was just after their pblock that they are feeling ashamed of themselves, and lost their power in noticeboards. A copyvio... NPP turned their first article to an ultrastub that was prodded just so recently. A person that is closing discussions that was disapproved by others, and others just complaining about my closures. People accusing that their article was promotional in tone and got deleted. An editor who wanted to advise people who was adviced by another to not make poor advices. An editor who replaced a generic block message to a CU block. An editor who has made convincing DRV edits that led to another disapproving on supporting my nomination. An editor who responds to COI edits only to be overturned following discussion by another editor. An editor who accepted categories only for the categories to head back to CfD and subsequently deleted. An editor who moved templates only to be overturn because the moves weren't discussed in the first place. An editor who relisted many discussions only to be criticized by multiple folks. An editor who has made a proposal on a talk page only for another to cite WP:DEEPER? An editor... An editor... wanted to leave the community just because they see the editor as disruptive. The editor, who has been criticized a lot, now begins to cry, and the community won't look upon on. Months later, the editor will be orphaned, forgotten by their community, currently hopeless and depressed, and has no confidence to fix the mistake, at all...

You know the editor in the story, and I know that you will certainly oppose me for all the reasons in the story. I may not handle this community that far, also keeping away from another block or even a ban. I really confess what I have done, and proofed that I will really try to fix the mistake. I feel a bit sobbed around, but as what Moneytrees has advised above, and others there, that I should withdraw, before the unforseen consequence occurs. I am really sorry about this. Toadette^Edit! 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking with my 'crat hat on - is this a withdrawal of your RFA? Primefac (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Not yet, but soon. People are raising valid concerns and feels that I lack the trust. It should continue to raise awareness of the story and possible changing their minds. Toadette^Edit! 19:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying they don't trust you to be well-intentioned, if that's a help. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider 'adoption'?

I was following along your RFA, just didn't want to repeat anything others have already said. Good job being brave enough to go "in front of the RFA crowd", sorry it didn't work out. But reading the section above you posted... Have you considered WP:Adoption or similar?

It used to be a more active WikiProject, but the central goal there was just... making editors well rounded. 1 year and 10K edits is an odd place to suggest this, but based on everything I have read, having a trusted more experienced editor who can guide you "hands on" could be extremely helpful for you. Think of it as a way to find a "trusted admin friend", someone you can turn to for guidance on the little-big chaos of navigating Wikipedia policies.

It doesn't have to be a formal thing, but I genuinely think it could be of good help to you. And maybe you'll be back with a successful RFA in a quick year or two :) Soni (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what was said above. Running a RfA hurts, I know. But the good news is that you're relatively new, and you have some time to learn. You need practice with communication and learning about our policies and guidelines. But you're not an admin yet, and you still have time. And the people who are !voting by-and-large mean well. Heck, I was opposed by Soni actually and he was right to do so, since I made a poorly communicated answer when I really should've just said that I needed help and time to look beyond the superficialities of an interaction. It's a learning experience. The Night Watch (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)