User talk:JYolkowski

This user may have left Wikipedia. JYolkowski has not edited Wikipedia since May 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

/Archive1 | /Archive2

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free with permission

Template:Non-free with permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:IDGov

Template:IDGov has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this template it was for Idaho government images, and someone hijacked it for Indonesia, so I don't care about the outcome (-: JYolkowski // talk 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi James, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments on the article -- Marek.69 ^talk 06:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit here regularly anymore, but if I have time in the next little while I'll have a look and see if I have any comments. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear JYolkowski,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing BLPPRODs

Please do not remove BLPPRODs from articles about living people, as you may have done here, without the addition of a reliable source, doing so is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks! --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me. JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck, I totally screwed that up then. My apologies. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth J. Woolcott

Just wanted to ask you about the Kenneth J. Woolcott article. The article may not be G11, and I apologize for picking the wrong CSD. I do think that it cannot stay on Wikipedia the way it is. It is too unencyclopedic. It talks as if it were a sales pitch or as if you knew the person, using opinions ("His love for basketball led him to become a minor owner in the Seattle Sonics Basketball team."). I agree, as the owner of a minor team, he may be notable, but I believe that the article is not very encyclopedic the way it is. I am asking you if the article should be deleted on it's notability, or should the nonfactual information be deleted? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article doesn't seem to meet the speedy deletion criteria (the only other possibility is A7, but the first paragraph seems to assert sufficient significance). It may be suitable for proposed deletion, however. Listing it on prod will also give it a few days so that if someone does want to fix the unencylopedicness (wow, a new word!) of the article, they can do so. If you do have the inclination to remove all of the non-encyclopedic stuff, go ahead. JYolkowski // talk 01:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Removing the non-encyclopedic stuff. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability credibly asserted

You removed the speedy deletion template from Cailyn Huston with the summary: article credibly indicates significance of person. I'd like to ask how? A hack blogger and a "community organizer" for a project designed and conceived by someone else (she is not mentioned in any of the news coverage of the project). Where is the "credible assertion of notability"? I guess I'll be taking this one to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time that you tagged the article, I would have agreed with you. However, the original author has added several citations to the article that that now credibly indicates that she played an important role in something important. AFD is probably a better place for this, as this is the sort of article that should require discussion to determine its eventual fate. JYolkowski // talk 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing Onion the Dog over from CZ

Thank you for bringing Orion the Dog over from CZ. I sure do appreciate reading NPOV articles which is what I strove to write. I am sure the article I posted to CZ will be deleted so perhaps it will survive here. You can guess who I am... :-) Quill and Pen (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hi Mary! (-: JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up concerning Facebook and Lexus Project

I reverted this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onion_the_dog&diff=497485123&oldid=497483814 as I found more information about the Lexus Project via their Facebook page. While this is not a reference for the article, the Facebook page does give organizational information which maybe useful for later research. I am advising you of this rollback so you know why I did what I did. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin assistance requested

Please review the edits I made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onion_the_dog&diff=497487539&oldid=497486485 I do believe adding this information has done WP a favor as in the page history someone is claiming the information provided is inaccurate. We now have to sources concerning the Lexus Project. I do believe in this case the addition of the Facebook exlink provides more information about the groups as it contains organizational information while the group's website was not as detailed. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on Talk:Onion the dog. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 03:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed block

I see that you lifted an indefinite block that I placed on NearMiss1208. I am distinctly surprised that you not only did not consult me before reversing my decision, but did not even inform me that you had done so. I can only assume that, since you reversed an administrative action without consulting the administrator who had performed it, that you thought the action was seriously inappropriate. If that is so, then is it not important for the administrator who has made a serious mistake to be informed of the fact, quite apart from the general courtesy of letting me know that you had reversed my action? Is it your usual practice to undo other administrators' actions without telling them, or was this an exception? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still disgusted at how this new user who was trying to make contributions in good faith was treated. I was far too angry to leave a sensible message last night, but it was apparent that you spent no time using your own good judgement to evaluate whether she should be blocked, so it wasn't worth spending my time notifying you. If you had spent any time evaluating the user's behaviour before blocking her, you would have noticed that she was trying to add content to the article in good faith; however, one of the links or the other that she was trying to use as a reference was tweaking various automated or semi-automated processes. You'll notice in the edit history that every revert of her was done through an automated or semi-automated process; these users spent no time at all evaluating the edit. Had they done so, they would have noticed that she was not trying to spam at all; she was perhaps quoting excessively from the page she was referring to, but she was not trying to solicit donations or anything like that; the money had been collected months ago and the EP already released. The correct solution would have been to gently show the user how to make the edit properly, but since you weren't involved there, that isn't your fault. Yet, you, as an administrator, should actually spend time evaluating the situation before chasing away new users trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. Your next two actions were to tag the article as {{db-band}} that has been around for six years and links to the band's albums that have articles, and notify the creator who hasn't edited in five years, so if the same amount of evaluation went into the block as did those two actions, that would evidence that you hadn't thought much about the first one either. If I were you, I would avoid throwing stones while you're living in a glass house. JYolkowski // talk 14:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey can you please help me on how I can improve ProCity Claim page? Thanks so much! :) U able to help with it? find as much info as you can so we can write up a Background and all that?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmingnz (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free with permission

Template:Non-free with permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair use-firefox listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Fair use-firefox. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Fair use-firefox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MBisanz ^talk 15:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Empress steamer.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Empress steamer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free USGov-USPS stamp

Hi James.

I'm researching Non-Free Content Reviews of postal stamp images with the possible goal of approaching an appropriate forum asking them to debate relaxing restrictions on their use.

The present Non-free USGov-USPS stamp template essentially derives from you 1. "as opposed to the subject of the stamp" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Non-free_USGov-USPS_stamp&diff=23195197&oldid=22358731 on 14 September 2005 with edit summary "reword illustrate bit" 2. original edit "The stamp in question" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Non-free_USGov-USPS_stamp&diff=22358731&oldid=22290698 referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use.

Can you point me to some sources which support the addition "as opposed to the subject of the stamp". This has become a bone of contention, leading to the deletion, for example, of a stamps such as the 1977 Canada Peace bridge stamp deleted 8 September 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peace_Bridge&diff=449032179&oldid=447424111 after discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_12#File:CanadaPeaceBridgeStamp.jpg because it only discussed the object of the stamp's design and nomination for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_31#File:CanadaPeaceBridgeStamp.jpg and leading in fact to a carte blanche dispensation to delete all such stamps withoyt the need for review.

I would appreciate knowing what was the rationale for your edit and indeed whether you support the outcome.

Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary JYolkowski

Wishing JYolkowski a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Dani Rovira

Dani Rovira: You say "Being the lead in one of the top movies in a country sounds significant" Wikipedia has fairly definite criteria for notability see WP:NACTOR and WP:NF. The article has not demonstrated using reliable and verifiable secondary sources that the "top movies in a country" was in fact notable. I believe this page should be deleted. Wayne Jayes 06:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi JYolkowski! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:HLPS Shield.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HLPS Shield.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, JYolkowski. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi JYolkowski.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JYolkowski. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test7 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Test7. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Test7 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Septrillion (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Manitoba-hydro.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Manitoba-hydro.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:HLPS Shield.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HLPS Shield.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places of local interest needing cleanup has been nominated for deletion

Category:Places of local interest needing cleanup has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. User:Namiba 22:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Test7" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Test7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Template:Test7 until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Test4a" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Test4a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Template:Test4a until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]