User talk:Onetwothreeip

Nomination of Georgina Rodríguez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georgina Rodríguez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Rodríguez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Thesixserra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Obi2canibe (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jordan Shanks

Hi,

Can I ask why you undid just about all the edits I made. The wording's clunky and it ought to be cut down a bit. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:2985:DCA0:EC54:5C93 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was not much cutting down. There were many changes made, and most of them did not improve the article. For example, the introduction was changed to describe Shanks as a "self-help guide", when this should not be in the introduction before describing him as a political commentator. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barkeep49, what are the rules that apply here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. There aren't any specicial rules for infoboxes, just the general expectations around contentious topics:

Within contentious topics, you must 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.

You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

Hope that answers your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Barkeep49. The rules for contentious topics are not different to other topics? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the rules for editors editing around infoboxes are the same, administrators have more tools at their disposal to deal with disruption. As such, it's more important to edit carefully and constructively. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are the different tools? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The individual CT page for infoboxes lists what those are. As a note, everything box infobox probation is standard across all CT topics, but some CT topics (like infoboxes) have additional rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Barkeep49, but what are the situations when administrators can apply these sanctions? These don't seem any different to the sanctions that are broadly applicable. I'm not familiar at all with how contentious topics are treated differently than other topics. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way I think of it is that it's the same rules more strictly enforced. Strict in this sense means both that sanctions are given sooner than they might be in a non-CT area and that sanctions can be more severe when placed. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is fair. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of candidate criteria stuff

I was checking closure requests when I noticed your close at Talk:2024 United States presidential election § RfC: Polling criteria for “major candidate” status. I'm curious as to why you said no consensus for how inclusion criteria should be changed. The § FORMAL proposal/further RFC: Change "major candidate" criteria for primary election candidates section seems to be the specific further RfC you talked about in the closing statement. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron Liu, I was referring specifically to that sub-section, "FORMAL proposal/further RFC", when determining that there was no consensus on how the criteria should be changed, but there is strong consensus that it should be changed. That part of the discussion was becoming inactive and the editor who opened that sub-discussion requested that participants agree on the need for changing the criteria, rather than proposing new criteria. As a result of that sub-discussion, there were multiple new criteria proposed, and there should be another RfC to determine which changes to criteria should be chosen. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have misread it. Cheers! Aaron Liu (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:James Ker-Lindsay

Hello, Onetwothreeip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:James Ker-Lindsay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6#RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation

I say this having gotten my own close of this RfC overturned: You really ought to elaborate on why you closed the way you did, for such a high profile RfC. Otherwise it will likely be overturned. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that "consensus for all three" is an implausible result, just one that is non-obvious enough to require justification. Mach61 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mach61, I have thought about elaborating on the close. This close was deliberately brief and very specifically worded. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61: I have added some elaboration. Please let me know if you think anything should be further explained or if you have any questions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think this helps much. You've added that you do not attribute consensus to the community as a whole, but have not explained why you found consensus (and no one needed to see the resolutions copy-pasted). Please give detailed reasoning. Mach61 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the reason why I found the consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairuse mugshot of Tarrio

Do you think we could use this mugshot in the infobox, as multiple editors have proposed? Feoffer (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will stay neutral on which image should be used. You can start a discussion on whether this image should be used in the infobox. You can alternatively add the image to the infobox (if it hasn't already been attempted), and see if anybody opposes it. Also, the image you added in this edit was different to the two images proposed in the RfC, and did not need to be removed on the basis of the discussion closure. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, huh? The lead image had been in place for years prior to its removal minutes before you made this statement. VQuakr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: I did not remove any images from the article, as neither of the two images being discussed were in the infobox. There was a different image at the time the discussion was closed, but it was removed by Feoffer shortly afterwards. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you removed any images. The status quo (as it had been in place for over 3 years) was interrupted by Feoffer on December 23, [1], before they removed the 2nd image the following day, [2]. Your closing statement, neither image was used in the infobox at the time is not accurate. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, it was accurate at the time I closed the discussion. This version was the live version of the article at the time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because someone had just removed it. That's an obvious issue per WP:GAME. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. How was my statement not accurate? There was an image in the infobox, but it was not one of the two options discussed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two images referenced in the RFC had been in the infobox since it was added per talk page consensus, in June 2021. That image was removed, while the RFC was open and active, by an involved editor less than a day before you closed the RFC. Saying neither image was used in the infobox at the time is technically true but not accurate, in that it does not exhibit comprehension of the disruptive behavior that resulted in that condition being true. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. The timing of the discussion closure was not related to any editing of the article. The relevance for saying that neither image was used at that particular time was because there were no edits for me to make in implementing the consensus result. For many RfCs, it is for the closer to implement the decision if applicable, and I was saying that this was not applicable as there was nothing for me to remove. If the infobox included one of the two images being discussed, I would have removed one of them on the conclusion of the discussion.

The RfC closure has no impact on dealing with editing disputes. I would assume that the infobox image has changed several times, causing a Request for Consensus to be needed. You can restore or add images to the infobox (except for those two which have been rejected by the RfC), propose them to be added, or revert changes made by others. It's not for me to get involved in that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the no consensus result would have resulted in reversing the previous consensus even if the image hadn't been improperly removed? Why is that? That does lead to my 2nd concern with this closure, that it did not address the frivolous nature of the "promotional image" argument. That's an example of a WP:UPPERCASE argument, in which a bluelink is provided but it isn't germane to the actual discussion. The only reason that image, which contains no branding, slogans, etc, could be considered "promotional" is if the real complaint is that it doesn't show the subject in a sufficiently negative light. This was brought up in RFC discussion but never addressed by the folks wanting to change the image. VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found there to be a general consensus against both of the images. I did not and would not consider whether any image was removed, properly or not, because that isn't relevant to the discussion of which image should be in the infobox. The arguments in the discussion were disproportionately regarding the weaknesses of the images, rather than their strengths, and the "promotional" nature of image A (as described by discussion participants, not me) was one of those weaknesses. The community should be able to find an image which has more support than either of those options. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus against both images is not what your closure statement says, nor is it a supportable conclusion from the discussion in that RFC IMHO. I find this to be a very ill-considered close and will be pursuing review, of which I of course will formally notify you and link. I do want to thank you for your replies here, though. While we disagree on the closure, you have been both patient and methodical in explaining it. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with review of this. I am not enforcing any image or lack thereof onto the article, or anything else. In the closure statement, I outlined that the discussion was broadly against both images: As discussion opposes both images more than they support them, and there has been discussion about other options, the infobox should use neither "A" or "B" and discussion should continue assessing other images. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RFC Closure Review - Enrique Tarrio. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, VQuakr. These comments on my user talk page are not part of the RfC closure, by the way. They aren't relevant in enforcing consensus on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where the problem lies

The Western Australian Goldfields is a term for areas in Western Australia that have had significant areas of gold mining occur is the lead and refers to the whole state.

the point is that goldfields occur outside of the identified region with the name goldfields - the content is very telling - it involves other regions of the state of western australia - the category of goldfields esperance has been removed - the perceptual problem is understood - western australian - and not just one region - it has been very useful to see the problem, thanks for that, I do hope you understand the potential misunderstanding. JarrahTree 10:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: That's right, the Western Australian Goldfields article referred to gold mining areas of Western Australia, including those outside Goldfields-Esperance, and is not a contiguous region or topic in its own right. We have the article Gold mining in Western Australia for that. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If only it were as simple as that - slippages in terminology over time in popular usage do not help - even the distinction between the mineral field and gold field as found at Mineral_fields_of_Western_Australia can be slippery when dealing with certain areas of the state. JarrahTree 00:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Candidates of the next Australian federal election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Candidates of the next Australian federal election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Teraplane (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)/Archive_6#RfC_to_issue_a_non-binding_resolution_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation

I was hoping to ask you to reconsider this close one more time; I don't think there is any basis for you to decide that this was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, rather than a standard consensus.

At the very least, would you be willing to withdraw your close and let someone else do so? BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message BilledMammal. I did not determine that this was specifically a local consensus. I do not see a reason to withdraw the close but I am willing to consider arguments. What reason do you see for withdrawing the close? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research study

Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helping with the Splitting

Hi there,

I'd be interested in aiding you with the splitting of List of Glagolitic manuscripts. Have you started a sandbox page for this split? If not, I'd gladly create one myself. If you'd like to correspond with me, my talk page is available.

Thanks! Sink Cat (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Candidates of the next Australian federal election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Candidates of the next Australian federal election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespecting a Peer of The Realm

The guidance form the House of Lords is very clear ion how to properly address a Peer of the Realm. Please don't disrespect The Right Honourable, The Lord Houchen of High Leven as you did by reverting my edit. Dn9ahx (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you are not serious. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very serious actually when it comes to British protocol and I will keep giving The Right Honourable, The Lord Houchen of High Leven the respect he deserves. Dn9ahx (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the next Australian federal election

Hi, just a bit confused- the article Next Australian federal election gives the date for the next election as "On or before 24 May 2025 (half-Senate) On or before 27 September 2025 (House of Representatives)", but in your comment on Draft:Candidates of the next Australian federal election you said that we're now within a year of the election so it should move back to mainspace? GraziePrego (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GraziePrego, I'd encourage anyone thinking of moving it to mainspace to consider the closing admin's remarks at the deletion review discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 25#Candidates of the next Australian federal election. TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read through that and both the AfD discussions before making this comment- I was just curious about 123's reasoning of their comment they left at the top of the draft ;) GraziePrego (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And suggest that when editors think it is ready for mainspace that WP:AfC might be the more appropriate route. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GraziePrego: The election will be no later than 24 May 2025 for both the House of Representatives and Senate. While it is legally an option for the House of Representatives election to be held separately as late as September, there is zero chance of this happening. Elections for both houses can also be held earlier than May 2025, at the discretion of the prime minister.

As there are several candidates already declared in reliable sources, and the election is relatively soon, the article should be restored to main space. The hesitancy that some editors have in publishing this article is unprecedented and this would be the latest we have published this article compared to previous elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD on Candidates of the next Australian federal election

If you genuinely believe in the comment you wrote at the top of Draft:Candidates of the next Australian federal election, then I urge you to be WP:BOLD and submit it for review! The reason I removed that comment is because I have only ever seen comments at the top of drafts used as directives for AfC reviewers, not for editorial discussion. If you genuinely think enough has changed since the outcome of both the 2nd AfD and the deletion review then there is no reason why you cannot be the review submitter. J2m5 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2m5: That is understandable. I also meant the comment directed to whoever may review the draft and not editorial discussion, although I don't think AfC is appropriate here. I would support another editor boldly moving the page into article space. There has been no conclusive discussion that this should not be an article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:James Ker-Lindsay

Hello, Onetwothreeip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "James Ker-Lindsay".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of mines in Australia by state

Hello, Onetwothreeip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of mines in Australia by state, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Kingdom general election records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Liberal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of mines in Australia by commodity

Hello, Onetwothreeip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of mines in Australia by commodity, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Germany national football team goal records for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Germany national football team goal records is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany national football team goal records until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

S.A. Julio (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of mines in Australia by commodity

Hello, Onetwothreeip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of mines in Australia by commodity".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BQ

Howdy. It was already discussed at WP:CANADA, that we treat the BQ as federal party, including only national numbers. We don't include 'only' Quebec numbers. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay. I had no idea someone else had tried to put the numbers in a few minutes before I did. I happened to be reading the article and noticed what seemed to me as a glaring omission. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're jumping too quick. The discussion at WP:CANADA is in progress & there's currently no consensus for your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Respectfully, it seems you're fighting a battle on your own here. The change doesn't require discussion, as now three separate editors have tried to put the content into the article, but the discussion participants other than yourself support or are indifferent to the addition. Nobody is proposing we remove the federal vote proportion column either, so it's not particularly relevant whether BQ is or isn't a federal party. The federal numbers are still coming first as well, so if I were you I'd take that as a win. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you 'at least' give the discussion a 24 hr run? If by then, you believe you've go a consensus, then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: You have a right to make your case there, but I would be concerned about breaching 3RR, it looks like you've made five reverts in a day. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly five reverts, but they were related. I missed that. I'll restore the disputed content. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates 2025 Federal Election

Hi I was checking for updates and thought I could contact you directly. I am a candidate with Legalise Cannabis Party Australia, standing in Hunter division. If you visit www.legalisecannabisparty.org.au there is a list of all the candidates to date. There may be more to come. This is me :-) Cheers Andrew Fenwick https://www.legalisecannabis.org.au/andrew_fenwick_candidate_for_hunter_nsw DrewFen63 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrewFen63: Hello, I have added several Legalise Cannabis candidates to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Firefox version history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Firefox version history, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 3, quarter I)

The article Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 3, quarter I) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Virtual all references are WP:PRIMARY (ABS-CBN/Facebook/Youtube) thus failing WP:GNG.

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. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 3, quarter II)

The article Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 3, quarter II) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Virtual all references are WP:PRIMARY (ABS-CBN/Facebook/Youtube) thus failing WP:GNG.

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. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 3, quarter III)

The article Tawag ng Tanghalan (season 3, quarter III) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Virtual all references are WP:PRIMARY (ABS-CBN/Facebook/Youtube) thus failing WP:GNG.

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. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tawag ng Tanghalan: New Normal

The article Tawag ng Tanghalan: New Normal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Virtually all references are WP:PRIMARY (ABS-CBN/Facebook/Youtube) thus failing WP:GNG.

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. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Onetwothreeip 🎉

Hey @Onetwothreeip. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 11 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of U.S. police officers killed in 2011 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of U.S. police officers killed in 2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. police officers killed in 2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Raskuly (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of U.S. police officers killed in 2010 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of U.S. police officers killed in 2010 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. police officers killed in 2010 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Raskuly (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2025 Liberal Party of Australia leadership election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025 Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollie Hughes was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2026

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2025
Everybody had a hard year, everybody had a good time.

News and notes: Good news... but also bad news for the Public Domain
Benvenuto Betty Boop, arrivederci Italian Photos.

News from Diff: Solving puzzles together
Maryana Iskander says farewell.

In the media: Every view on the 25th anniversary of everything
Media about hard-core nerds, a place with paragraphs, baby globes, and wikipedes.

Comix: Perspectives
Everybody has one.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

In the media: Global powers see Wikipedia as fundamental target for manipulation
Attempted Wikipedia shenanigans apparent from Epstein, AI, various governments.

News and notes: Discussions open for the next WMF Annual Plan
Plus, WikiFlix going places, steady progress on older FAs and other news from the Wikimedia world.

Serendipity: Maintenance crews continue to slog through Wikipedia's oldest Featured Articles
Hundreds of old FAs have been triaged since project began, but thousands remain — and they need reviewers.

Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.

Technology report: Wikidata Graph Split and how we address major challenges
A personal perspective on a major update to the Wikimedia social machine.

Traffic report: Deaths, killings, films, and the Olympics
I'll have the usual!

Opinion: Incoming Incurables
A poem for Wikipedia Day 2026.

Crossword: Pop quiz
Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

Comix: herculean
efforts.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

Interview: Bernadette Meehan, new Wikimedia Foundation CEO
Part 2.

News and notes: Security testing unleashes computer worm on Meta-wiki
Dormant worm awakes; a sketchy archiving site struck; ether burns.

Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident?
A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?

In the media: Indonesian government blocks Wikimedia logins; archive site scoured from Wikipedia after owner runs malware
As well as controversy over LLM translations.

Recent research: To wiki, perchance to groki
Comparisons continue.

Obituary: Madhav Gadgil, Fredrick Brennan, Mark Miller, Chip Berlet
Rest in peace.

Opinion: Interface administrators and trusting trust
Potential attacks are the logical consequence of giving a group of users unlimited control over JavaScript.

Technology report: English Wikipedia deprecates archive.today after DDoS against blog, altered content
After the archive site launched a DDoS campaign against a small blog in January 2026, a request for comment was started, with consensus to deprecate the site used almost 700 thousand times.

Op-ed: Why is "Trypsin-sensitive photosynthetic activities in chloroplast membranes" cited in "List of tallest buildings in Chicago"?
The answer is slop.

Essay: The pursuit of a button click
Volunteering for Wikipedia has its rewards. The thank-button, for example.

In focus: Short descriptions: One year later
A discussion of the challenge set forth to the Wikipedia community one year ago!

WikiProject report: Unreferenced articles backlog drive
Unreferenced articles in English Wikipedia - help us in the backlog drive!

Community view: Speaking of planning ...
The WMF planning process is underway.

Traffic report: Over the mountain, kissing silver inlaid clouds
Death and the Winter Olympics.

Crossword: "It will never happen"
Want to take a break?

Comix: BRIEn't
Or is it.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]