• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

User Talk:Tamzin

Archives

Oct. 2020–present: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12 Nov. 2012–Oct. 2020: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Absolutely deserved for uncovering the Swaminarayan-sockfarm. A lot of work is waiting, but you did great! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi Tamzin, I'm Kevin. Thank you for your diligence on the Moksha88 SPI; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental efforts to explain why their comments were offensive have been helpful and appreciated by all. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely second this. Your essay is excellent, as well. You're doing the (proverbial) Lord's work, and with much more patience than I. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Pepper can.jpg

Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach! in jewish enby siblinghood, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2728 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For reverting my accidental buffalo stampede. Thanks for ameliorating the utter state of confusion.Pharos (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for being able to make tough blocks, while maintaining the humility to not do so lightly. —Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For Help:-show classes. Really great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your conduct in the Inverted Zebra ANI thread. I doubt I'd be able to keep my cool nearly as well as you did when personally attacked. Your writing managed to convey being justifiably angry without being aggressive. Major props to you for your conduct there, good Mx; I hope I can be even half as civil if I ever find my own person under attack. I hope it blows over quickly now, so you can get back to editing.

EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all you do to make Wikipedia a more inclusive, welcoming, and safe community. – bradv 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year, Tamzin! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1003 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 10 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		Hello again. I wanted to apologize again for my response to the Charlotte York article and my mistakes regarding the page move. You were incredibly kind, especially when the entire situation was my fault, and I wanted to thank you again for that. I am truly happy to see such great and kind communication on here. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Your vote at Leeky's RfA was one of the most reflective contributions I've read in a long time. Thank you! Schwede66 19:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped by to say "What a nice thing to say about a friend!" but I see User:Schwede66 was here first. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Barnstar of Awesomeness
	The thing that prompted me to award you this rare and exclusive barnstar was your work in creating User:Tamzin/ACE2023 guide. But don't think that all the other things you do have gone unnoticed! You are an awesome Wikipedian! Thanks for everything. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Elli. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)

​Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!

(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, people from the future. Confused why your name shows up here? See here. -- Tamzin (she/they) 05:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona in the wild? Mute olin!! :D Atomic putty? Rien! Atomic putty? Rien! 16:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use olin mute, or more properly mi olin mute e ni 'I love this', although ni li pona mute 'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 02:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin omg ur so right, sorry I’m rusty. I love finding ppl who speaks Toki Pona outside of the discord server, it’s like a little linguistics easter egg Atomic putty? Rien! 12:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin P.P.S. Apologies for my English, German’s actually my first language ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! 12:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.
Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

f u delete this or im gonna tell the mods on u. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tsk, really should have discuss[ed] the matter with the editor at [...] the [[:|article's talk page]] — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special talk:Diff/1148616329? Sounds like a good place for settling disputes TheresNoTime ;)

Talk pages for special pages when? /j Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re above: by itself, from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in the objective case, due to its function as the object of the preposition from. But, in the longer expression From who[m]ever edited this page, who[m]ever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrase who[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "whomsoever." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find that I did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter, Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you. :) ) -- Tamzin (she/they) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Opposition to human rights, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Tamzin (she/they) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous, Tamzin. I demand you resign your patrollership. -- Tamzin (she/they) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a personal reason for it? 2607:FEA8:FE10:80D0:19BA:6297:7766:A64 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many brave Tamzins died in the Great Tammy Wars. Some find strength in looking back, but I find it easier to forget. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG YES! El_C 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = <!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->
|source_user = <!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->
|user_days_back = <!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->
|user_edits_back = <!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. -->
<!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->
|namespace = <!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" -->
<!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->
|always_watch = <!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|never_watch = <!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|update_frequency = <!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->
}}

Thus mine might look like

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
               User:Tamzin/XfD log
               User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
               Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
               User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->
|source_user = Tamzin
               'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->
|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}

That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.

Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"hint, TNT"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're ever looking for a new project, I think it would be very helpful for categorizing redirects if more redirect category templates could take a parameter to define the term the redirect is a modifcation from, for use with redirects that are modifications of other redirects (i.e. are avoided double redirects) and can be used along with the {{R from avoided double redirect}} template. For example, {{R from alternative name}} allows one to put the more common name after a pipe (parameter 1) in cases where it is different from the title of the redirect target, or {{R from other capitalization}} allows one to indicate the form with other capitalization after two pipes because that template is coded differently. {{R from alternative spelling}} also takes a parameter after a single pipe. Rcats that don't seem to have this functionality include {{R from plural}}, {{R from singular}}, {{R from long name}}, {{R from ASCII-only}}, {{R from initialism}}, {{R from acronym}} and likely others. Should be fairly simple to modify the templates, but you seem far more suited for template editing than me! Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdewman6: That does seem like a good project. I've got a full plate of technical projects right now, but maybe 1234qwer1234qwer4 wants to take a stab? -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 21:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see this redirect which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~ Atsme 💬 📧 14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin—hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to update User:Example male and User:Example female to use Special:GlobalPreferences to set their genders, instead of setting them locally? As an irrelevant aside, as I was writing this note, I realized I would ping both accounts. This made me curious: how many pings are they currently sitting at? Anyways, happy editing! HouseBlaster 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution to one of your cons is that Microsoft has an installable utility for Windows that supports this kind of stuff, rather than fumbling with ALT + 1,250,822,818. See https://learn.microsoft.com/windows/powertoys/quick-accent DatGuy_Contribs 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

now i don't have to enter and reënter those keys, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on removing BLP non-compliant material from Soa Palalei and Rock Machine Motorcycle Club and calling Wikipedians out for being a bit too quick on the revert button. Cheers! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, talkpage watchers! If anyone's looking for an article to write, here's one that I think is really interesting, easily notable, and maybe has GA potential, but with which I have a minor COI: Edgar Labat, a Black man wrongfully convicted of rape in Louisiana in 1953. At the time he was freed (1966), he was the longest-serving death row inmate in U.S. history. He was the subject of protracted litigation throughout that time and became a cause célèbre, with lots of coverage. This Time article gives an overview. Newspapers.com has lots more. And there's scholarly coverage. My COI is relatively small (my grandparents advocated for him and he lived with them briefly), enough so that I'd be fine assisting once written, but I shouldn't be the main author on this. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 18:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know {{bcc}} existed. I wish there was a list of semi-obscure and occasionally helpful Wikipedia features. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tamzin. I was curious, would it be much effort to modify task 1 of 'zinbot to also mark pages sent to AfD as reviewed? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tamzin. I've just seen Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea. I wish a few more administrators realised the very basic and simple fact which is the main point of that page. Many times I have been carefully watching a repeatedly created title to catch the next sockpuppet, only to be thwarted by someone coming along and protecting it. A related case is a personal photograph, often on Commons but sometimes on WP, which is used only for persistent WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by an editor who keeps coming back as various socks, and naively puts the same image in each new user page. So easy to check "what links here" every now and then, until someone deletes it, thereby cleverly persuading the sockpuppeteer to recreate it under a title that I'm not watching... Sigh... JBW (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we all encounter some form of mental illness in our lives, some all encompassing, some apparently trivial. Nothing is trivial, but we can think it is.

I knew all this, but I know it better now I've seen it written down.

I took my own wikibreak a few years ago, and it was for a few years. It coincided with sudden busy-ness in real life, and I think I would not have handled things well had I continued, 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 19:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope it's not too forward of me to drop by to say that I smile every time I see your [cetacean needed] signature. Nothing really of substance to add, it's just improved my day enough times that I wanted to tell you so. — Moriwen (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamzin/userboxen/User non-admin someday You finally got there! 😃. JBW (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Sadly I forgot to ask the 'crats to use the userbox. But, for whatever reason I'm back in the saddle now, so maybe next time.

Some say my tenure will end in arbies.
Some say in 'crats.
From what I've tasted of ol' ANNIE.
I hold with those who favor arbies.
But if I had to de-mop twice,
I think I know enough of burnout
To say that for desysop 'crats
Are also great
And would suffice.

(With apologies to Robert Frost.) -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 16:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, Robert Frost! I read and very much liked his poems back in my youth, but I can scarcely remember anything about them now. The sadness of the passing of time... Sigh... JBW (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sadness of the passing of time ← That's more Proust. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 17:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but I've never read him. JBW (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If while I am editing on my phone, but not on my computer, I select some text in a foreign language, a box with various options pops up, including Google translation. (I think it is probably a feature of the particular browser I am using, but it just could be some option or script I've put in place and then forgotten.) Anyway, if on this page I select the text "wan Tansin li toki pona" and then select "translate", Google translate appears, and tells me that the sentence is Arabic, and means "I want to talk to you". If instead I get to Google translate by a Google search, and paste the same sentence in, it still thinks it's Arabic, but now translates it as "And if you forget me, you will protect us".

An interesting warning against treating Google translate as reliable. JBW (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial example. Toki Pona is one of the least common languages on the internet (and real life too). 178.120.54.237 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to talk to you,

And if you forget me,

You will protect us.

I want to smile at you,

And if you remember me,

You will understand me.

I want to sing to you,

And if you will sing with me,

Our harmony will light up our lives.

I want to understand you,

And if only Google would help...

Only it fucking won't.

JBW (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was so great to meet you at Wikiconference North America – thank you for allowing me to infiltrate the Cool Kid Inner Circle! Hope to see you again at future conferences/gatherings and around on the wikis :)

Accedie 22:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, just came by a philosophical discussion more than anything and to say thank you for your feedback in your guide. Yours was the first one to be published with substantive commentary on the candidates and up to that point it had felt a bit like typing into a black hole! I think we agree on more than disagree on. I'm very strongly in favour of admin accountability. I'd like to see it become slightly easier to become an admin, much easier to git rid of a problem admin, and for a desysop to not be a permanent stain on an editor's record that means they'd probably never pass an RfA again. I'd love to see a community-based desysop process for removing admins who have lost the community's trust or confidence, and I'd love to have a venue like XRV that had teeth to censure. I just think the whole meatpuppetry case was handled rather clumsily. All ArbCom had to do was say "for policy purposes, these two editors can be treated as one" (which is black-letter law) at the outset. The community could have handled the rest. From what I've seen, these were two editors who were trying to do what they thought was the right thing for Wikipedia, even if they were on the wrong side of policy. I think it's important to remember (cf. my comments about YellowMonkey in response to my most-recent question) that we're humans behind the usernames and even admins who have made even severe misjudgements are still people who have given thousands of hours to make Wikipedia better. We may have to discipline them for The Greater Good™ but we should try to be compassionate while we do it. Anyway, you're a great admin and I respect your opinion and won't hold it against you if you oppose me. I don't expect you to change your mind, just wanted to share my thought process. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the page I mentioned in my comments no longer exists. Could you please create a redirect from https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/_Sennalen to https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sennalen ? Thanks! XMcan (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XMcan: We usually don't do redirects from invalid titles at SPI, but that's why I edited your comment when I moved the page. :) P.S. You can link to Wikipedia pages using [[square brackets]]. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 22:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I'm happy when everything works ;))) XMcan (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Should I shunt off my collapsed section elsewhere off the WP:AE? I thought that I should try to illustrate the problem for the admins that I see, but I'm not sure if this PvP is helpful as an illustrative matter or not. Without the section, I'm well-below 500 words. With the section, I am well over. jps (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One option would be to start a section on my usertalkpage, for example, and link there just to make things prettier. Seems a little silly in terms of rule following, but I want to make the situation as easy as possible for people who want/need to follow it to follow it. jps (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: I think it's fine collapsed, as long as you understand that, collapsed, some might not read it. Either way, you're "only" at ~160% the limit, while Sennalen is approaching 300%, and I try to be even-handed on word limit. If you have more to say, we can discuss an extension, but again, fine for now. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 18:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am hopeful that this may be the end of it. I am fine with people skipping the section as I think it should really only be relevant for those with a keen interest in the sausage-making/inside-baseball of these matters. If I think there may be cause to expand, I'll ask your advice, if you don't mind. jps (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anything else I might need to say, but as more and more people excavate old diffs to accuse me of different things, I reiterate that there is too much for me to respond to under the current procedural vehicle. I encourage you to join the conversation on my Talk page about whether I have any improper PoV. Sennalen (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: If it's alright, I would like to reply to Rjjiii,

((re Rjjiii)), Lab leak and zoonotic theories are not equally likely. "Unknown" is the language of several sources and is not principally about lab leaks - but rather uncertain aspects of timing, intermediate host, etc. Jps and I are having a more fruitful exchange along these lines on the article talk page, which I invite you to join.

Thanks, Sennalen (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this comment will help admins reach a decision in the thread, especially after so much has already been written, so I am declining this request for an extension. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Would it be procedurally inappropriate to leave it on his talk page then? I really just want to invite him to the conversation. Sennalen (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against talking through other channels, although that's not to say I recommend it, just that it's allowed. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 04:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may have more bearing on helping weigh the evidence: I would like to remind everyone,

Documented consensus[1] is there is no consensus that lab leak is a conspiracy theory (#1) and that The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (#4). What I support and others oppose is the presence of the word "likely" there, and in this matter I am on the side of consensus. (It's true I once considered lab origin very likely; however my current assessment is only that it is plausible.)

Thanks, Sennalen (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Special:Contributions/IntroEggplant

Thanks for anything you can do to investigate and prevent further abuse. Keyhound (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tamzin. I hope you're doing well. In your closing comment to that AN discussion ereyesterday, you said: "I've always tried to be an editor who's a leftist, not a leftist editor. It saddens me that some others are seemingly unable to draw that distinction for themselves." Hearing this from you gave me pause as, in context, this to me feels more like an attack on the characters of editors (including me) who differed from you, than a contribution to the debate on the issue at hand. Now that that discussion has more or less concluded, would you consider retracting that remark? Kind regards, -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maddy from Celeste. I've considered your request. Given that multiple editors cited explicitly political rationales for their stances in that thread, I do not think it was inappropriate to criticize, in general terms and without naming names, editors who were putting their political views ahead of the encyclopedia's interests. There's more I could say, but I said I was done with that thread, so I'm going to stick to that and continue working on building an encyclopedia. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 21:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Looking at that thread, I think multiple is an overstatement. In any case, it's good to know you presumably weren't referencing me. I would contend that, as evident here, such general criticisms may be liable to misinterpretation. Best, -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin. The following articles in ARABPIA were recently created by a non-EC user. Could you please delete them? (I put up a deletion template, but this shouldn't need to wait 7 days ... if you are not the correct address, can please you tell me where to turn?).

Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (July 2011)

The palmer report

Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East

Lieutenant Hadar Goldin

Black Friday (bombing campaign)

2014 Bombing of Rafah

Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dovid. I won't have much bandwidth for admin work for at least a few days, but I'll ping @ScottishFinnishRadish as a pinch hitter. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left the editor my fancy ARBPIA welcome and a CTOP alert. I'll look into it further this evening. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Id ask you or SFR move Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East and Black Friday (bombing campaign) to draft space instead of delete, as I would take responsibility for both of those if necessary, just want to more fully review both sets of citations, but I do know both are definitely notable topics. nableezy - 17:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I'm willing to just leave them in mainspace.

Dovidroth, the article on the lieutenant is already at AfD, so I'll let the community decide on that. I've deleted Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (July 2011) as it has no substantial contributions from ECR editors. The others have been converted to redirects, so I'll leave them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Is there something that we can to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future? Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, because we can't proactively salt every prospective page title relating to ARBPIA. lizthegrey (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was just feeling like it had turned kind of meta and thought we didn't need to include every possible example that could be scraped up. I think you're right about this one. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Val. Came upon it while working on Canceling (video essay), which I feel like is one of those links I'm gonna turn blue in either a week or a year. Coming off a series of articles that weren't exactly light stuff, including rewriting parts of Self-harm and of course writing This War of Mine: The Board Game, and I stomach all that just fine, but there's something about summarizing a 100-minute video of someone describing collective emotional abuse, throughout the course of which she gets progressively drunker, and which starts with her drinking King Cobra out of the bottle in a bathtub surrounded by trash bags, that got me questioning whether this was what I wanted to write about for my hobby. So yeah, a week or a year. Anyways, I do agree with the overall removals. It's a really tough topic to write about without perpetuating the victimization. I do recommend the aforementioned video essay if you haven't seen it. (Obligatory and very meta disclaimer that I do not agree with every single thing Natalie Wynn has ever had to say.) -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on incubating something in that vein about fleshing out "morally" motivated networked harassment and a chronology of the phenomenon as a fuller page, just have been busy. lizthegrey (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second one in a week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Special:Contributions/Deliganist

Please investigate, and remove the suspect content. Thank you for your help.

Keyhound (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• IntroEggplant (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Deliganist (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

@Firefly or @Drmies: Are you able to take a look at these? Behaviorally it's spot-on and I'd probably block on that alone, but may be worth a check. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 03:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two above are  Confirmed to each other, and reasonably likely to NS on behaviour and technical evidence combined.  No sleepers immediately visible. firefly ( t · c ) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really want the early and mid sections of these articles to change, for example, in the article 2000s in fashion, the sections Early 2000s (2000-2002) are changed to Early 2000s (2000-2003) and Mid 2000s (2003-2006) to Mid 2000s (2004-2006). It just does not seem right to me and other editors here. Is there a way to change or to convince the change? Thanks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Autisticeditor 20: You can start a discussion on the article's talk page and build consensus, but frankly this does not seem to me a good use of editorial resources. See bikeshed problem. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Zero 06:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hope all is well. I am writing because I wished to know, since it has been more than 3 months, if my 0rr for the Israel-Palestine conflict be removed? Thank you and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @3Kingdoms. Well, as noted on your usertalk, Special:Diff/1185347119 was a 0RR violation, but you handled it amicably with Starship.paint, who then wished you luck in getting the 0RR lifted. I said in August that I would be prepared to lift at the 3-month mark as long as there has been no disruption in the preceding 3 months and you have been reasonably active, and I'm not prepared to call that one-off incident "disruption"; meanwhile you meet the "reasonably active" criterion. If this was a matter of going from 0RR all the way to 3RR, I might be more hesitant, but, as discussed in the original AE appeal, this whole topic area is under 1RR regardless, so this is only a moderate step down. So, sure, I hereby lift the sanction. Please make sure to abide by the 1RR and other CTOP norms and restrictions. All the best and happy <winter holiday of your choice>. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 20:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear! Thank you very much! Happy Holidays to you too! 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into it as you have previously blocked his sock, it's look like a duck. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AvinashCabral DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin,

Hope all is well. Sorry to be a bother, but here's yet another NeuroSex sockpuppet account: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Special:Contributions/HeavyWheeler

This is approximately NeuroSex's 89th known account.

"NeuroSex" continues to repeatedly post misleading/incorrect information with impunity using illicit sockpuppets. Unfortunately, even when such sockpuppet accounts are banned, their edits often remain. Wikipedia admins choosing to leave the sockpuppets' edits up creates a powerful incentive for NeuroSex to continue their course of conduct of posting disinformation.

Can anything be done to clean this situation up?

Thanks so much for your time. Keyhound (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keyhound, sorry for the slow follow-up on the last thread, haven't had much time for Wikipedia. But I'd like to see this batch through at least. @Firefly: Mind taking a look again? Once this is resolved I'm inclined to throw around some AE protections. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 19:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed to the last two reported here.  Blocked without tags. Closing. ;) firefly ( t · c ) 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Keyhound, I’ve reverted the edits of that user per WP:BANREVERT. Best, A smart kitten_meow 22:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Firefly. I've given a 5-year CTOP semi to the Wilson article and, with some regret, 1-year semis to both affected talkpages. This has been going on for 6 years and shows no signs of stopping without intervention. NeuroSex has no shortage of better things to do with their time; hopefully this pushes them in that direction. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, I have been meaning to contact you for months but in amongst my activities here and in life in general, I keep forgetting to get around to this. Now I understand that some action had to be taken against User:2601:601:D02:2120:2D85:C84E:EE00:4AF0 which is who I believe to be Judd Hamilton. But thinking about it, I believe he had no idea of how things work here, and made the legal threat as he may have not realised it's not permitted. I do really believe he was genuinely upset and felt insulted by the remarks of an editor who basically said that he was a "nobody" and that member now I see had been banned not long afterwards. Given Mr. Hamilton's age (81) and the circumstances that caused him to react in the way he did, is it possible to consider unblocking him a month and 2 weeks earlier than his block expiry?
Regards Karl Twist (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) he hasn't requested an unblock, what's the point? ltbdl (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Twist: Legal threat blocks can be lifted as soon as the threat is retracted. At the same time, don't be misled by the block length: It's only temporary because IPs change over time. If he resumes editing from that IP after the block ends, and does not retract the threat, he will be re-blocked. I appreciate that that may seem unkind to do to an old man who doesn't seem to have any real malice in him. But legal threats are a serious thing, particularly in the U.S., where, due to the way our court system is structured, it's entirely possible to become bankrupt through litigation that never even results in a judgment. When you threaten to sue someone, you threaten to put them through years of stress and to cost them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. (The WMF may cover the latter, but there's no guarantee, and I don't believe it covers ancillary costs, not to mention the effects of the stress.) So it's no small matter. But if he can retract that threat, I'm very much open to an unblock. (No promises, but definitely not a hard no.) -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 19:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin. I doubt if the person that Mr. Hamilton threatened legal action towards would be concerned judging by their behavior. Other people would be yes. I'd probably agree with you there. Anyway, he only has a month or two to go. I have no issue with what you say. So we'll leave it as it is and see how he comes back in the new year. Anyway, I hope you have a nice time during this Christmas season and best wishes for 2024. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The DYK holiday award goes to?
		I wish you happy holidays! Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I just spent a few hours looking through the articles you list on your userpage, and was very impressed, by how interesting the articles are and by how well researched and written they are. Thanks for your valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, and happy end-of-year-month! Eddie891 Work 20:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the closure of List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms isn't sitting right with me. Not enough to exclaim "you've got it wrong!" but enough where I'd like to get it off my chest. Specifically, it's because Thryduulf actually never objected to the deletion of the content itself, rather the objection was purely jurisdictional—wanting it at AfD instead. Even after prodding him to give a rationale for keeping the content, he couldn't do it. Because there is no one wanting to improve the content, draftifying doesn't actually do anything. It'll just rot in draftspace for six months and then get unceremoniously G13'd. I'd much rather have seen it deleted outright, perhaps with a comment that WP:REFUND to draftspace applies if someone wants to work on it. That way the problem doesn't just get pushed six months down the road unless there's someone explicitly putting their name to it. -- Tavix 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I considered that approach too. Ultimately what I felt was, for a non-controversial deletion of content, all that's needed to restore to draftspace is an editor in good standing saying "This shouldn't be deleted", and we had that. As I noted in the close, anyone can move it back to mainspace if they want, and the next step would be AfD. It's just that restoring it outright seemed unlikely to improve the encyclopedia, due to the current state of the page. I don't think it's a given that it will "rot in draftspace", though. I mean, it may well, but it's also possible someone will take interest. I don't think List of LGBT acronyms would be an obviously invalid list, or someone could create a broader-concept article like Acronyms in LGBT culture, or add content to LGBT slang, or make an article out of the redirect Glossary of LGBT terms. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early in the KlayCax SPI, we both ruled out StardustToStardust as a sock of KC. However, I think my judgement was wrong in not tying them to ShirtNShoesPls. The SNSP account was created several hours after STS was blocked from 2024 United States presidential election, an article both editors overlap on. On Talk:Pope Francis, both accounts took an identical view on Talk:Pope Francis, parroting the term sophist across talk pages (STS, SNSP). Like SNSP, STS is very familiar with RFC nomenclature. Additionally, both editors exhibit American editing hours (STS, SNSP). Both use asterisks to accentuate words in edit summaries (STS, SNSP). As I mentioned with another editor, both STS and SNSP follow a similar naming convention. Am I seeing patterns where there are none? I feel awful for putting this on KC, as I really don't think this is their fault, particularly with the fairly definitive CU. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on this, Prbitti. Thanks. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Sdkb}}  07:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Tamzin! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Tamzin, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, I know you're Jewish (and so am I) and that Hanukkah is over, but whatever ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ QuickQuokka 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello and thanks for all the good work. I see 'zinbot has marked a redirect I changed as reviewed. Just checking you're aware that User:DannyS712 bot III does a similar job, though it won't hurt to have a second bot helping to avoid backlog. Certes (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: 'zinbot shouldn't be marking any redirects (in the technical sense) as reviewed. Its scope is RfD'd redirects—which for technical reasons are considered articles, not redirects. Danny's bot, on the other hand, only patrols true redirects. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 20:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, technically it had become an article. Thank you for the explanation. Certes (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been struggling around verifying sources for Holocaust articles (surprise, there are a lot of problems) and with some effort and concentration produced a machine translation of an archived dead link. I then lost my mind and pasted THE WHOLE THING to the article talk page, my point being that the source is not about the massacre; which is what it was used for, but just a ceremony commemorating it a few years ago. It's not really substantive. But then I realized, aha, that may not be fair use in Polish law. It's definitely not the same thing as the hand translation with translated template that is usually what I am doing with translation.

I edited the text down to bullet points. Your opinion is solicited as to whether I am now in compliance. But I also know that a copyvio in the history is still a copyvio, so I think I am supposed to ask for help at this point. I clicked around and found the list of admins willing to do rev del's, and picked you because we've at least spoken before. I do know better but in that moment however for some reason did not. You may trout at will.

Let me know if I am requesting this wrong? The edits I am concerned about are:

• #Konspect source at Holocaust in Lithuania:[2] [3]
• #IPN source at Ponary massacre: [4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Honestly, I usually wouldn't bother with a few paragraphs quoted from a source on talk (a gray area in theory, in practice a ~0% chance of ever going to court), but since you're concerned, sure, I've revdelled the three edits. FWIW, Google Translate does have a "websites" option on it... but when I plug in [5] it forgets to actually, erm, translate the thing. Hmm. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just trying not to be the one. And yeah, I had to cut and paste. Translate somehow doesn't get to the archived text. Normal cut and paste doesn't work either; you have to use the widget at the bottom of the screen. In any case, thank you for taking care of that for me. Elinruby (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for the greatly detailed and in-depth analysis of the AfC over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emoji redirects. Always appreciate when someone goes the extra mile. That was a great summary with good guidance for the future!

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus 19:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever find yourself wanting to collaborate with someone on a green side article, I'm your anthropomorphic plant. I'll find a lovely red link or stub with amazing pictures on iNaturalist and maybe even a weird fact and teach you all the "secrets" to understanding the strange language of Botanese. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin :)

It's been a little over three months since you granted me Rollback (following my request under § Request for Rollback), and the temporary permission has lapsed. I'm therefore leaving this message to request a re-grant.

While I had the permission, I used it to undo sockpuppet edits (mostly with the mass rollback script & a custom edit summary) and quickly revert obvious vandalism (when using the default edit summary). (I took a wikibreak for some time during the three months, which resulted in me not using the tool in November and only using it once in October.)

I made one accidental rollback, which was undone with an apology. I have not received any concerns directly relating to my use of Rollback - the closest was a message I received on my talk page regarding my reverting of sockpuppet edits (that thread can be viewed here - due to the editor that messaged me also requesting undeletion, I tagged it for {{admin help}} after responding myself).

Let me know if you have any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten: Sorry for the delay here. I agree that there were no issues in your temp grant. I have granted permanently. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that sounded off. Couldn't put my finer on it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/MerriamWebster/status/1447573632448966656 – bradv 01:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I wasn't planning on using that report anymore. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It's just a procedural action to restore the previous partial block after the temporary siteblock lapsed; it doesn't imply any issue beyond the original one. If you would like to appeal the original partial block, you of course may. -- Tamzin (they|xe|she) 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not good at making an appeal anyway. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain that the report was an accident and I was not in the right state of mind. I didn't even look at the warning to do not do it again because I was too busy with other things outside of Wikipedia. If I did lie too many times about not making unnecessary username reports, I would have remembered myself, but I don’t remember at all. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FilmandTVFan28: I am no longer an admin. You may appeal your partial block on your talk page with {{unblock}}, or at WP:AN. For what it's worth, as I've said, I think all you need to do to get unblocked here is explain how you'll avoid making these incorrect reports. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Many Faces of Jesus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus for comments about the article, and Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 25,602 views (1,066.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article, thank you. Great use of old sources. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @No Swan So Fine! It was exciting to find such a long-lasting, far-reaching story that had almost no coverage on this wiki. I'd love to spin The Return out at some point, since it's really its own topic, but I'm guessing most coverage would be in Danish. Maybe Guerillero can pick up the torch. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 02:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think with the advent of contemporary newspaper sources from the Wikipedia Library that we could be entering a golden age of articles on recent historical events. I think for the first decade of my time on Wikipedia such sources were inaccessible and it seemed that the distant past was better covered than post war events. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is a perfect example of how, despite those who claim otherwise, all the interesting articles most definitely have not been written yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mira Bellwether you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mira Bellwether for comments about the article, and Talk:Mira Bellwether/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks for a really helpful review. I'll sleep on some of those style questions. Also, this notification made me realize that the recent change I made to WP:DYKG wasn't reflected in the GA pass notification! I've streamlined the whole thing. Happy editing. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 02:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tamzin Recently a page was created for professor Masoud Shafiee whom is a famous teacher at AmirKabir university in Iran. You can find his page on university website here. You can also find his page on google scholar here. He has authored lots of scientific books and papers and is well-known in the scientific community. In regard to his works at different universities in Iran and as he is well-known in Iran, a page was created for him on Wikipedia. But a guy has deleted the page after less than a day from creation (without any reason). As he is one of the most famous professors in electrical engineering in Iran and was the dean in university of Applied Sciences and Technology (named here), the Wikipedia page was created for him to help users find his information on the internet. The page was for his students and other people to know him better and find information about him. As the page is deleted (here), I would be grateful if you could restore it. Thank you in advance. Golyapooch123 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Golyapooch123: The English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia. It looks like you've already found fa:User talk:MJXVI. You should continue your discussion there. Thanks. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 09:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin! I might be overthinking this but - after taking Huggle for a test drive yesterday - I had a couple of questions about one of the rollback conditions here. Specifically, where it says that reverting a net-positive but flawed edit (such as an unsourced addition of encyclopedic information that could be sourced with a simple Google search) counts as a "bad revert".

I just wanted to clarify a few things. Firstly, I wanted to check if this condition was intended for default rollback (with the bland edit summary) only, or if it includes the use of rollback with a custom edit summary and/or using tools like Huggle (which can revert with a summary like addition of unsourced content to a biographical article); given that one could (for example) undo the edit using the same custom summary and not have it fall under rollback. Secondly, I wanted to check how this condition interacts with WP:BLPREMOVE, which requires that contentious unsourced information about living people be immediately removed.

For reference, the times during my Huggle test drive where I reverted due to the lack of a source are here, here & here. Looking back afterwards:

• The first edit contradicted the source that was currently included at the end of the sentence, and a brief Google search has found conflicting information as to whether or not the Los Angeles Opera are involved & in what sense, in addition to conflicting information regarding the year and place of the premiere. Because of this, I thought that it was best to revert the unsourced change, due to not being familiar enough with the topic area to feel comfortable making any substantive alterations to the article myself.
• The second edit was reverted per WP:BLPREMOVE. Searching afterwards, I found a source that could have potentially been used to insert similar content into the article, but - when patrolling (e.g. using Huggle) - this sort of investigation & rectification is something it's not always possible to do (especially when I'm not familiar with the topic in question), and - when the diff showed up on my screen - it seemed like the type of contentious material that BLPREMOVE says should be reverted immediately. A worry that came to mind was that not being able to revert unsourced additions like this while patrolling might potentially defeat the purpose of BLPREMOVE.
• For the last edit, I accidentally hit the 'standard revert' button instead of the 'unsourced BLP revert' button, but I attempted to make up for that by leaving a supplemental mesage at the editor's talk page.)

If you have any feedback and/or criticism about the reverts I've made, or any questions about anything I've said, then please let me know. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten: Yes, I was only referring to standard-summary rollbacks (or rollbacks where the added summary offers no greater clarity). And of course, the occasional mistake of which button one hits is understandable. It sounds like you're being conscientious about your reverts, and that's the whole idea of my approach to granting rollback, so keep at it. :) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 04:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 'zin. Can you please move your analysis of my evidence to the "Analysis of Evidence" section on the workshop page. We have an unlimited number of words there -- Guerillero 11:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Sure! FWIW, speaking to your arb-self and not your party-self, it's not at all clear to me as a random party what the difference is between rebuttals on evidence and analysis in workshop, and that might be something to clarify someday. But whatever works for others. ☺ -- Tamzin (they|xe) 17:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just looking through the contribution history of this particular IP when I noticed that someone had sent a rather uncivil message to you. Well, I wasn't that person, but I would just like to stop by and offer my most sincere apologies on behalf of that person. I see your notice on your talk page about stress, and I know it was a while ago, but I can't imagine that that rude message helped any further. I hope you feel better soon!

Many thanks, 92.40.212.157 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I like whales and I like doing silly things. So I took no offense. But thank you for your thoughtfulness.

The stress banner could probably come down now (the circumstances that begat it still exist but life goes on and life is good), but I'll leave it up a little bit longer. If anything I am the opposite of stressed right now—serene and methodical—but strangely that can have similar effects, to the outward observer. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 13:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and maybe there's some reason you want all 142 of these conversations here, but if there isn't, maybe do some archiving? They have bots for that, you know. :D Valereee (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Valereee. Your punishment for asking this forbidden question will be getting this whole schpiel in return. Eye (heh) of the beholder as to whether that makes me an agent of the evil eye.

So, when I started to understand my dissociative identity disorder in late 2020, I wound up with a lot of great insights into myself, but also wound up a lot less functional than before. Basically everything I did was on impulse, and it took exceptional energy to plan things out more than a day in advance. In a lot of ways that made life Hell, but that bare-minimum stability meant that I could slowly tug my mental health to where it needed to be, in order for me to be the person my family deserved. And eventually I got to that place, got to create the happy domesticated polycule life I'd dreamt of, but I still was stuck on that 24-hour planning loop.

And so in all that time, about 3 years, responding to messages was the hardest thing. I set a hard rule for myself that any ADMINACCT inquiries got a drop-everything response, because at any slower pace there was no guarantee I'd remember to reply at all. Once something fell off that 24-hour radar, I often forgot about it entirely. Every few months I'd comb through old messages and reply to some, and leave others. But it was always a losing battle.

So, that's the "maybe ... some reason": I've left a lot of messages up because I'd rather respond late than never (and, for ones I've already responded to, or that don't need no response, the same phenomenon's always made it hard to remember to archive/remove). Now, for all my willingness to speak about mental health in the abstract, I generally dislike explaining on-wiki issues with "because mental illness". The reason I'm answering this now is because all of this stopped being true about two weeks ago! And I'm excited about that and wanted to take a moment (at the expense of your reading patience, no doubt) to commemorate it. After three years of figuring out my DID, it turned out that if certain parts of me merged with certain other parts, the result was a combined part with an actual working memory, healthy sleep schedule, and much better disposition. It's pretty awesome! I've spent a lot of the past two weeks doing things like place important phone calls and then get really excited about how I just totally placed that phone call without forgetting for 6 months. On-wiki, I've been working on my "white whale" draft, which I'd wandered away from for the third time in July. (I shan't link. 🪬) And so, this is a fortuitous time for you to remind me about these back messages. I'll try and get to them this week. :) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 04:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, T! Well, first, I'm so happy for you that whatever strategy you've found is working so well that you're feeling a true sense of delight with it! That's great. And second, I get it about needing to keep messages "live" (for want of a better term) in order to prevent yourself from forgetting them. I use my email inbox the same way -- if a message needs responding to but I'm not ready to respond, I remark it as unread. It's not a great solution -- I have messages months old that need responding to. Oops, including an invoice that's probably at least that old, yow. :D At any rate, third, I intended more gentle ribbing than anything else, and apologies for getting into mental health territory with that, it hadn't occurred to me that might be what I was doing. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I take no offense, @Valereee. I just enjoyed the chance to give a brief update on where I'm at, since I don't think I've said much on-wiki about that since August. Also thank you for reminding me I need to pay an invoice. (Got to pay for the new solar panels! Very exciting. We'll see if they pay for themselves before '44 repeats itself.) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to read this, especially the part about the benefits of your internal M&A. (Who says they're all bad?) You were a great person to chat with when I was regularly in the Discord VC, and I miss those days. Come by WP:WMNYC sometime if you feel up to it! <3 SWinxy (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just assume those with long user/user talk pages are in a contest with @EEng: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tamzin,

First of all, I am really sorry if writing this breaks any rule, be it a written or unwritten one, or if it comes off as Lourdes-style canvassing and pressuring. Heck, I am a rather random editor with quite a humble amount of edits, with few connections and somehow limited knowledge of the Wikipedia's community. But I thought to myself, what could go wrong? Worst case scenario, I will maybe be ignored or warned. Surely, I wouldn't be blocked... right?

Oki, onto the matter of the subject. Since a few months I've been participating in RfAs, getting to see the community in action and seeing how the entire process works. Honestly, this entire thing gives me anxiety and I cannot really imagine ever trying my luck there myself. Unless it takes me 10 years to gather enough experience and Wikipedian culture will be completely different by then. Although I would be an elderly man by then - 35 years old!

I mean, you know that first-hand, where RfA is just some cuttthroat business where people look for scandals to ignite just to sink the candidate down. You made a very rightful comment about Trump and Trumpism, only for it to become a huge outrage that almost sunk your entire RfA. And yet what you said was completely correct and fully appropriate, and your entire point that people can and should be judged for their politial views was just a truth that people voting against you just did not want to hear. At least that is my view here, because I do not mean any disrespect to people who voted the way they did at your RfA.

And here comes the RfA of The Night Watch. I am writing this because despite the fact the vote is currently looking good for them, I can't help but just feel... frustrated about this whole thing. Not because I know The Night Watch or have any right to be so emotionally involved in it, but it's just this... emphathy. I can imagine how hurtful their tone-policing remark against you was and how hurt you felt, and how their A9 appeared to be tone-deaf, which also prompted leeky (and, finding myself convinced by leeky's stance, also me) to vote neutral instead of supporting. But then... The Night Watch wrote an appending to A9. It felt like a very emotional, honest, sincere and simply heartwarming apology, and full recognition of their error. It made me feel like there is truly something else to Wikipedia than just its brutal atmosphere and white-on-black text everywhere. Leeky switched to support, and so did I.

And we know what happened next. Now The Night Watch is experiencing an oppose wave on its own just because for that appendix. Because it's "melodramatic", because it's weak, because it's self-flagellating, because it's supposedly disqualifying for someone who aspired to become an admin. Honestly, it just feels upsetting to read and see. I feel like The Night Watch deserves better. After all, this is just a losing situation for them, their A9 came off as out-of-touch to some, and when they went the other way and actually lived up to their mistake, they get criticized all the same. There is literally nothing they can do! Apparently the only way for The Night Watch to truly gain the community's trust is to completely disregard you and your feelings, and to stay silent on the matter. But they didn't, and it seems they're paying the price.

So, why am I even writing this? Because I thought, and wanted to ask you, if maybe you feel like you could change your vote in the light of this development. Like I said, this is a scary thing for me to do, because I do not want to come off as some canvasser making himself look like an idiot for an RfA candidate they never encountered, but I am wondering if this thought crossed your mind. I just feel like what's happening at this RfA is great injustice and makes me feel depressed about the whole thing. It felt like a personal defeat for me when Tails Wx withdrew - that is because as a fellow furry and asexual, I just couldn't help but root for him. But alas. And now The Night Watch can get their RfA sunk over developing as a person and fully recognizing their mistake. I hate this.

Your oppose was extremely impactful, and every single oppose against The Night Watch is related to it and the incident that prompted your oppose in the first place. If you were to change your vote, it would have turned this whole thing upside down. And I wonder if that wouldn't be the right thing to do in that situation.

Ok, I am so sorry for this long text. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts! I am again sorry if you find this inappropiate or if I'm showing off my inexperience by unknowingly breaking a rule by writing this. Feel free to warn me, revert this, or maybe just ignore it if that is the case. But I felt like it was worth a chance to write this to you and see your thoughts. Thanks! Brat Forelli🦊 07:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Brat Forelli. I don't mind the comment at all. I've been thinking a lot about whether I stand by my oppose. To me the four main factors are:

1. I like TNW as a person.
2. I don't like seeing good people put in emotionally difficult situations, and like being part of it even less.
3. I do have unresolved concerns about how TNW would act as an admin.
4. I do not think it would be the end of the world if TNW became an admin.

As much as (1) and (2) sway me on an emotional level, I do not want to vote against my own perception of what's best for the project: Adminship isn't a reward for being a good person; it's an assessment of one's fitness to serve in that role. So I hope that that ambivalence came through in my follow-up comment yesterday. If this goes to a 'crat chat, 'crats can and will weigh votes based on statements that qualify the support/opposition, and I would expect a 'crat to do so for mine—especially given my obvious bias regarding the incident at issue. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! I do find your perspective interesting and I really appreciate the fact that you shared it!

One thing that leaves me wondering is that you did mention the increasingly likely possibility of the RfA becoming a narrow call that will have to resolved through 'crats. Of course, other possibilities on the table are withdrawal, be it from the enormous stress that The Night Watch is going through, or the odds shifting further against him.

You did have to go through the 'crat vote in your own RfA. It was definitely all narrow, both the actual support ratio, and the 'crat chat was also not unanimous, with two 'crats arguing that there was no consensus for your promotion. Thankfully, however, you made it - you got the mop and you use it to your fullest to make Wikipedia a tad bit brighter.

However, should The Night Watch have to go through all this? The 'crat chat, this cold process where they have to watch whether the 'crats argue in their favor or not? I feel like it was terrible in your case, and it would be just as terrible now. I also find something chilling in the scenario that you hinted at in your comment on your oppose. That should the RfA fail this time, jaded and cynical The Night Watch could try again in about a year or so. A bit depressing for me to envision that one's world has to lose their colors for the community to deem them ready for the mop. Brat Forelli🦊 04:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had stopped reading TNW's RfA after deciding I wasn't going to participate but checked in just now. And I have to say I find these diffs ([6] [7]) really unfortunate. It feels like you're shocked shocked that there's opposing going on in here. If you didn't want to see the rfa fail you could have done nothing rather than opposing the way that you did. But the chance that the rfa would go the way it was completely foreseeable and so feeling conflicted or sorry might be sincere but is a bit much coming from you. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Huh? I don't see where I said I didn't want to see the RfA fail. In fact, I've conveyed the exact opposite by declining to strike or weaken my oppose. I also don't see where I said this course of events was unforeseeable. Is it really so much to want to be able to oppose a candidate you aren't convinced would make a good admin, and to also not want people to be a dick to them? If you think that it's "really unfortunate" that I a) made a comment addressing the nuances of the situation and expressing sympathy for the candidate's situation and b) criticized someone assuming bad faith of the candidate, then I... well I really don't know what to say, Barkeep. This is one of the most utterly surreal talkpage messages I have received in 11 years. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 17:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I don't understand what your conflicting feelings are (ES of diff 1). And from my POV, Grandpallama's oppose is being no more of a dick than your oppose - which to me are both with in the realm of what people get to oppose about at RfA. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have read my addendum in haste. Your implied question is answered in the second sentence. As to Grandpallama's comment, I suppose there might be a certain wiki-worldview in which assumption of bad faith is no worse than bringing up an old argument, but it's a worldview that's quite alien to me, and sounds uncharacteristic coming from you, as I tend to think of you as being fairly staunch on civility. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 17:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 9 directly gives them a chance to respond to your oppose. And the chance that would happen is predictable. I suppose A9 wasn't predictable exactly but that for me doesn't mean you bear no responsibility for what happened, including A9 and the reaction to it. Despite your characterizing it as such I don't think Grandpallama's is bad faith; I don't agree with the characterization of it that way, I agree 100% with yours for similar reasons of how I acted when I was young and on the internet, but there is absolutely evidence to support the characterization Grandpallama gave to it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Again, where do you get the idea that I think the current state of the RfA was unforeseeable, or that I reject any responsibility for it? Obviously, my oppose was the first link in a chain of causation, and while there have been intervening events since, ultimately we probably wouldn't be here if not for my decision to oppose. That's why I made the comments you're criticizing, because I felt a degree of responsibility for the state of things, including bad-faith-assuming opposes like the one that you are saying I should not have argued against. I'm really confused by what's happening in this conversation. You seem determined to dissuade me of things I never said, which is very much unlike you. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, Given there were no objections, I've implemented your suggested change to the template, and hatted the ARCA request. Let me know if I managed to botch the template somehow. :-) Maxim (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Maxim! Tangentially, might also want to clarify the different standards of review for CTOP / case-level AE, as came up briefly in the discussion. Since it's just a matter of reflecting existing policy, I imagine it shouldn't need a new ARCA. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 02:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's truly sad to see you resign, knowing how much you mean to the admin team. Your work as an admin has a significant impact, but I completely understand and respect your decision. I'm not asking you to reconsider because I respect your choice. I sincerely hope you'll still be around to offer your valuable advice and continue your great work. Thank you so much for everything you've done as an admin. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I'm not going to try to talk you out of resigning, because you know what's best for yourself, but you've consistently exceeded expectations as an admin and your presence on the admin team will certainly be missed. I'm glad you aren't retiring from the project entirely, I'm sure we can expect many more interesting articles from you in the future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the others said. And your frankness in stepping back and evaluating your own behaviour is greatly admired. If and when you are ever ready to work as an admin again, know that you will be well-placed to mentor a new generation of admins and break the vicious cycle. Of course, content work is no mean feat either, and it is integral and central to a complete encyclopedia. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (/_{my edits}) 18:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what the others have said: you've been a net positive to the project, in all respects. Thank you for your service as an admin, and cheers to many more years of building the encyclopedia. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 21:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Wikipedia is a cesspit and the worst part is that it drags down people who are here to build an encyclopedia. Something I've been working hard on for the last couple of years is only engaging in activities that help build an encyclopedia and in being as positive as I can (with things like Challenges). — Bilorv (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<3 You were a good admin, Tamzin. Good on you for continuing on the content side, and all the best, both here and IRL - DFlhb (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right about the toxic culture here, but Wikipedia is so resistant to change that I doubt it will be fixed in the foreseeable future. It can be very discouraging at times, and there have been multiple times where I've also considered stepping back to focus on what really matters. Thank you for all of your work as an admin, and I hope to see you continuing to build an encyclopedia in the future. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding everything said above. You've consistently been one of the few admins willing to speak out and take action when you see problems rather than ignore or perpetuate them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 20:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although perhaps a novice editor, I agree that a lot of editors lose sight of what the point actually is. Thanks for your admin work, Tamzin. _Dial 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burn the candle only at one end, probably wise. Luck. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service, Tamzin... just noticed your resignation on BN. You have been an excellent admin and editor throughout your wikicareer and I'm sure others will say the same. Prodraxis _(talk) 21:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your admin work, Tamzin, and good luck with whatever projects you work on next. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I only just found out, and I want to let you know how much I appreciate you, and how much I appreciate your work here. Definitely, your own well-being matters far more than mopping up some messes on a website. If you ever feel like talking to me about it, you know where my talk page is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Tryptofish. Honestly it's not about my own wellbeing. It's about... I don't know, the only phrase I can think of to describe it is the Toki Pona term nasin pona—nasin meaning 'path' and pona meaning any of '[of] correctness', '[of] goodness', '[of] simplicity', or '[of] peace'. Part of that's about one's own wellbeing, sure. But the greater part is about one's place in the world. At a certain point I realized that I was interacting with the world in a way that didn't match my own sense of self. And then recent events solidified my feeling that this was not a space I wanted to be a part of. (More Toki Pona philosophizing: 'want' and 'need' aren't separate things; instead there's only superseding degrees of wile.) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very thoughtful reply. For what it's worth, one fish's opinion is that getting more in touch with one's most appropriate path is very much a part of achieving well-being. But whatever the inner motivation, I understand the dissatisfaction with the culture at this website, and I wish you well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the stuff we deal with here isn't that nice, but in my experience you were. I'm certainly glad you're not taking off entirely, and hope I'll still run into you. Seraphimblade 19:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd missed this. There has been a lot of loss in the community this year. Heal gently. Glad to see you're still planning to stay around and I look forward to continuing to work with you. Star Mississippi 16:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry I'm only seeing this now, Tamzin. Echoing others above, it's sad to lose you (for now) from the admin corps, but I'm glad you're still around in a capacity that works for you, and looking forward to working with you on content going forward! Sdkb  00:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for your service, Tamzin. I have only good words to say about your tenure as an admin and have always found you to be a very helpful person. I'm glad to hear you aren't fully retiring, and will certainly see you around! Patient Zero 00:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sad to see you leave the admin corps, but I hope that it allows you to become a more productive Wikipedian and a happier person. I've mostly quit anti-vandalism work for content creation and I feel like I've actually made a difference. Hope to see you around soon! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, how did my name end up in the Wikihate section? How did Nosebagbear/you get a hold of my name and put it there? I'm really confused. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  never mind, I get what the trolling means ;) ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I only just now saw this. Your resignation comes at a time when I most likely came to the same realization as you. Two months ago, it dawned on me that I should have never been talking negatively about other editors behind their backs. I feel like such a better person.. I am genuinely happy for you. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 all of this. Thank you for your service as an admin and best of luck in your future endeavors. Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 15:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Only just now saw this, via admin newsletter. But I couldn't not chime in and thank you for your admin work and continuing content work, and also for trying to steer things in a more friendly direction. DMacks (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you very much for your contributions! Completely understand your reasons for taking a break ( :( ). Hope that you might return to admin work, if you'd like, sometime in the future. Frostly (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• #Content SWinxy (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm surprised to see that you resigned. While we have not seen eye-to-eye on many issues, you were a good administrator and were able to isolate your opinions of what policy should be from your application of the existing rules. That is the most important skill that an administrator can have, because the administrator toolset is for enforcing community consensus and the editor toolset is often for trying to change it. Since I trust your perspective on whether or not you should be using the tools, I won't say you're making a mistake, but if you start another RfA, you can expect my support. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I somehow just came across this -- it slipped through my radar -- when I was confused by your lack of an admin flag in a page history, figured a script was on the fritz...boy, was I surprised. I'm sorry to see that you have given up the bit but do understand your reasoning and empathize. Thank you for your work as an admin, Tamzin. It might not have felt like it but it was greatly appreciated by myself and others. I hope to still see you around the 'pedia. ♥ --TheSandDoctor 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. If you need anything from me or want to talk, I'll be there. The Night Watch (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TNW. :) Likewise to you. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, in the past you blocked this IP as a sock. Well, they're back, it looks like. I've accepted one of their dratfs at WP:AFC, but since they're a banned user any article by them can be G5. Any advice? Nobody (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:Puff 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 February 25 § Wikipedia:Puff until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redlink at User:Tamzin/userpage/special inspired me and I created this. Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! Thanks, @Bri. I'll have to tell my mom; she'll like that. Maybe at some point I'll edit-request in a synopsis.

P.S. Might want to mention the Highway of Death when discussing "Highway to Hell" -- Tamzin (they|xe) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also, it was Robert Vare, not Ted Koppel, who edited Things Worth Fighting For (along with my mother, but she's not credited). -- Tamzin (they|xe) 16:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08 for comments about the article, and Talk:Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligent edits throughout the encyclopedia, as well as getting to the bottom of a possible misquote at Jo Clifford. I know you're on a bit of a break at the moment, but just want to let you know your contributions and kind words are still appreciated! GnocchiFan (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any interest in vetting the History section at User:Valereee/ Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender to remove any stupidity or ignorance on my part? (Any TPS also invited to edit.) Valereee (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word for comments about the article, and Talk:When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cover-up tattoo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cover-up tattoo for comments about the article, and Talk:Cover-up tattoo/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for taking the additional steps required to create a viable and just consensus on a complicated topic :) FortunateSons (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 43,372 views (1,807.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 42,498 views (1,770.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe anal fingering should have its own article split from Fingering (sexual act) as anal fingering comes with its own techniques and risks. Do I have to be patient when it comes to consensus? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Autisticeditor 20: See WP:PAGEDECIDE for when to split a page. It seems unlikely to me that there's a benefit in splitting off just anal fingering, unless you plan to be able to write a much longer article on the topic. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 20:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I plan to extend the info on anal fingering. Thank you. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kip 00:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last patrol April 4. I noticed this when a redirect I created that was sent to RfD was patrolled by a human new page reviewer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is still an issue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: You had set this up on Toolforge. Do you know what's up? -- Tamzin (they|xe) 00:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last error was;

==> zinbot.err <==
    return self.request('GET', url, **kwargs)
  File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 542, in request
    resp = self.send(prep, **send_kwargs)
  File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 655, in send
    r = adapter.send(request, **kwargs)
  File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/adapters.py", line 498, in send
    raise ConnectionError(err, request=request)
requests.exceptions.ConnectionError: ('Connection aborted.', ConnectionResetError(104, 'Connection reset by peer'))
CRITICAL: Exiting due to uncaught exception <class 'requests.exceptions.ConnectionError'>
Sleeping for 120.0 seconds, 2024-04-20 09:22:49

so I've restarted everything (toolforge-jobs flush && toolforge-jobs load jobs.yaml) and there doesn't seem to be any new errors. I'll keep an eye for a bit.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hm, still not running (I think..?) — I've tried recreating the venv, no joy.. I'll keep digging for a bit and let you know — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 30,998 views (1,291.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster for comments about the article, and Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Tamzin User:Aryatheautistic 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please self-revert your latest edit to the MfD or I will be bringing this matter to the ANI for violating WP:NPA. Thank you Durchbruchmüller 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol fuck off. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, would you like to go to ANI and dance that dance, or shall I just block them? Drmies (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sock, Doc? Such a shock. Good block. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 22:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was fun. Nice alliteration. Do you want to go to that MfD and strike out all their comments? Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have a previously scheduled trepanation that seems much more pleasant. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm sorry to hear that. What's for dinner? Drmies (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me, if they do it wrong. Got a 100% discount for agreeing to that. But I trust Fat Sal and his whole team at the auto body shop. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in February, you told me that a living person's page needed to be more neutral than I had it.

Would it be appropriate to include a description that a company was criticized for being transphobic, if two sources I have (articles from LGBTQ Nation and The Mary Sue) characterize the organization as that?

Article One: Ex-Levi's president launches anti-trans sports clothing brand XX-XY Athletics

Article Two: Former Levi's Exec and COVID Denier Launches First Transphobic Clothing Line Rhino Ryan (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, since you have already taken the time to read through Bäckadräkten for its recent DYK nomination, I wonder if you wouldn't mind leaving a few comments on its current FAC nomination. It's been up for just over a week with only one reviewer so far. My appreciation in advance if you're able to help! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been researched on:[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tks. TK talk TK. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 23:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect F♯*@bois 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 May 30 § F♯*@bois until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today I got around to publishing two responses to things people have been asking me about.

The first is in response to queries, comments, and well-wishes by, among others, @DreamRimmer, Trainsandotherthings, Wilhelm Tell aDCCXLVI, Sawyer777, Bilorv, DFlhb, Ingenuity, Thebiguglyalien, Callitropsis, Dialmayo, Selfstudier, ~delta, QuicoleJR, Tryptofish, Seraphimblade, Star Mississippi, Sdkb, Patient Zero, HistoryTheorist, Queen of Hearts, DMacks, Frostly, SWinxy, TheSandDoctor, The Night Watch, JBW, Valereee, JPxG, Xeno, and RadioactiveBoulevardier. (If you've had something to say and I missed your name, please take no offense.) I recorded this back in March, in response to many of y'all either asking why I'd resigned, saying you hoped to see me back, or equally saying you completely understood. I never got around to editing it down, but was spurred to do that after a conversation yesterday with Vami_IV (ZL)'s sister, so, here it is: File:On the backrooms.ogg. Transcript available at c:TimedText:On the backrooms (essay by Tamzin).oga.en.srt for those deaf, hard of hearing, or just not that interested into listening to my voice for 22:52—although I do think it works best as audio.

The second is in response to "Wikipedia's Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia" by Kyle Keeler: User:Tamzin/Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies. (CC Gråbergs Gråa Sång.) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 21:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We share some of the same. I think everytime people scream Cabal/Unblockables (I'm guilty of the latter) they tend to get partially ignored because their behavior is under a microscope for something. However, there's often a grain of truth. I'm a legacy editor and some of us are wonderful, but some legacy editors have burnt out and it comes across and its part of why AN* is a cesspool. Yes, there are the POV pushers and trolls, but there are also a lot of us (I include myself on both sides of this) hashing old grudges and it's not productive. If I'd been AWOL long enough pre COVID I'd likely never have asked for the mop back. I try not to be part of the problem, but I know I'm not always the solution either. I wish you peace with your decision and hope to still see you around. Star Mississippi 01:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing, isn't it, Star. The people who have good introspection are never the ones who need to have it. I can't recall ever having a problem with how you handled anything... But either way, like I said, the problem is rarely the individuals, and much more often the system we've all created. And I don't have a solution for that really, other than to back away and hope someone else fixes it eventually. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I always felt your actions or lack thereof in a case were backed up by reason and logic. Star Mississippi 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still thinking, will probably get back to you soon. The Night Watch (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a recording for you. I've never been a good speaker and it probably won't be as good as yours, but I'll try. The Night Watch (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as a newer editor (i've only been consistently active since last august or so) and an autistic person, and as someone who loves people-watching and lurking around trying to understand the dynamics of human social capital, i've found wikipedia to be well... exactly how you describe. i have a bad habit of reading ANI (i've even got it open in a tab as i type this) & trawling through the depths of past arbcom proceedings purely out of fascination; i could point to several threads on ANI right now that are crystal-clear examples of the double standards you point out. i've even found myself falling into the mindset of "do i have enough social capital to bring this up [to ANI, etc], or should i just hope that someone else more 'senior' than i will see it too and do something about it". i really appreciate you putting this into words, and since joining i've found your willingness to speak your mind, both onwiki & on discord, refreshing.

i've never fully read through Vami's RfA nor yours, and i don't plan on it at this point, but i knew Vami for a few too-short months mostly via the discord server. i was kind of surprised when in january he offered to collaborate with me on Gates of Heaven Synagogue, as in my mind i was a lowly noob with a single GA and he an Experienced Content Writer - i recall finding out about how he'd been treated previously shortly before his death, and i guess i don't have a single solid conclusion to this thought, but it's made me reflect a lot on my short tenure here. i think we can all learn a lot from Vami, and like him, be kind and collegial regardless of early-2000s notions of social capital that still have such a grip on projectspace. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If i understood it right, you sent that to the journal. I'd be interested to hear of any response you get. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I tried at least! I used the online correction request form, about 30 minutes after I published the page on-wiki. But I didn't receive any confirmation of receipt. Maybe T&F doesn't do that? Guess we'll see. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 16:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Apparently it did make it through! ... To the help desk for all of T&F, who have now forwarded it to the journal's production team. Will keep y'all posted. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 17:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful analysis in both. If you're healthier and happier not being an admin, I'm glad for you that you made that choice. I 100% agree that the effects of social capital on the culture here are often dismaying. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for posting this. It was thought-provoking. I took it in, yesterday, and waited a day before deciding how I wanted to reply. Most importantly, I agree with Valereee that what matters is what makes you healthier and happier. As I often say, it's only a website. The other thing that occurs to me is that a while back I wrote WP:DEFARGE out of concerns about drama boards that are at least somewhat similar to your own concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful for your response, Tamzin. There were serious inaccuracies with what Mr. Keeler wrote. I have no doubt he is an amazing professor but he got his research wrong if that was his ultimate summation of Wikipedia and editors here. For a bit of clarity, Corbie and I clashed at times, usually over newbie mistakes I made in haste of trying to improve articles, in good faith, but ending up not doing so. We also clashed on ideas I think were miscommunications that, for my part, I don't think I took in consideration enough. But I loved Corbie being here as another voice. I never had an issue with her position on Indigenous topics as we generally lined up. My issue with her is found in what was discovered or was relayed in the AN discussion you started.

I took part in the discussion on Talk:Reservation Dogs where Revirvlkodlaku was being disruptive and received a block from Mark Ironie. There was never any indication Mark knew Corbie or had any connection or, despite the valid reason for a block, I would have asked for a review. Look, there may be people that don't like me here, that think I make poor arguments or have misguided positions. I accept criticism. Some may even question how real I am about my positions or who I am. But the fact is I try to show in everything, whether I am right or wrong, I am at least genuine and I stand for something. I admire that quality in others. As much as I want Corbie and IG here, and I so do (I miss them), I was floored by the information Corbie and Mark knew each other and in my view that made Mark an involved admin and he shouldn't have made the block.

You made a fine admin and your resignation, though painful to see, was understandable. I appreciated your candidness and thoroughness with what you wrote. I hope there is a response to your open letter. Tamzin, when I say I wish all health and happiness to you I mean ever single word. Thank you for your service as an admin. --ARoseWolf 18:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that I liked about your on the backrooms statement is it gave an excellent description to something that came up here, where I said It is unfortunate that CTOP often serves to set a minefield for newer editors who don't know how to play the WP:GAME. and caught a ration of shit from Nyb about it. I replied, in part, with I certainly hope that I didn't come across as supporting or aspiring "playing the game" and marching in rigid formation. That's just how editing in CTOPs plays out with the sanctions regime in place, and the long-term editors in those topics know how to toe the line, and often how to get others to flinch over it. That is not good, bad, and certainly not the way things should work. However, it is the way things work. You just happened to explain it much better than I. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of these. And thank you from the bottom of my heart for providing a transcript of the audio file! I was very surprised by some of the things you said there. (I would never have thought you shared my distaste for being a hall monitor/prefect!) I may share my thoughts, here or in an e-mail. But I have one serious niggle about your Signpost letter that I'm going to post as a comment there. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I joined this site immediately after COVID lockdowns began. My mental model of Wikipedia reminds me a lot of politics and the judiciary in a democracy like in America. Social capital is sowed and reaped to enact changes, and uninvolved people make binding decisions like a judge would. I think it's a useful framework to use. It diverges with the fact that we're not really a bureaucracy or a democracy, but the roles and norms are the same. But lawyers and judges and justices following norms is something great.

No one person is capable of reading all of ANI. Users go in and out inconsistently, resulting in inconsistent outcomes. (I never considered this to present a challenge to some on the autistic spectrum, and it's worth more of my time to consider.) One useful trick I think we ought to learn from circuit courts is the randomization of assigning cases (i.e. threads) to an admin in a pool. Their specialization is to deal with these cases, and dole out decisions consistently. Likewise, some users specialize in being justices, sitting on the supreme court (an analogy I think is unassailable). Specialization matters, even here when power is so evenly-distributed.

But halfway between when I joined and now, around 2022, is when I think I started to see other editors as colleagues. Proper colleagues. I imagine everyone in a discussion as sitting around a drawing room in a mansion, fire blazing, we're all in red robes drinking wine. We're asking each other deep questions and debating to get to some truth, putting on different hats. Other times I imagine them as researchers doing their own research, as a scholar. But still colleagues. My shift to this thinking has been positive: I get less frustrated and more complacent with the wills of other people when things don't go my way. It's all culture and capital, but it's also in the eye of the beholder. I can summarily reject any cultural capital someone has accrued. And we can get more ideal outcomes that way, individually. Maybe. SWinxy (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For an adroit close on a complex RfC Chetsford (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort in closing the ADL multi-RFC. It is greatly appreciated. starship.paint (RUN) 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A rouge TARDIS (or the closest thing I could find on Commons), for having made a closure so Rouge that its effects travelled through time and were being challenged before you even issued it. . . . But to be serious, I appreciate that you undertook to close, and closed so thoughtfully, such a large and complex discussion even as it was getting international attention and pushback. Someone had to do it; the discussion was open for so long as to suggest no-one wanted to do it; I appreciate you doing it. -sche (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Capri-Sun, written together, introduced: "Capri-Sun debuted in West Germany in 1969. Since then, it has become a global brand, one made distinctive by its stand-up Doy-N-Pack pouch. Growing up, you could find a Capri-Sun in the lunchbox of that kid you hated. These days you can find them center-stage in French hip-hop culture as "the new ostentatious elixir of French rappers and gangsters". In the United States, Capri Sun is associated with wholesome things like picnics, soccer practice, and having for 16 years been licensed to one of the world's largest tobacco companies, which applied its expertise at both selling products to children and misleading the public about products' health effects, in a marketing strategy so effective that you're probably still thinking about that kid from two sentences ago. Childhood consumption of sugary beverages increased, and so did childhood obesity, but admittedly Pacific Cooler does taste great. - Initially, Tamzin and I thought this was gonna be a quick adventure – we thought we'd quickly flip a good number of soft drink articles, maybe even get a good topic. Capri-Sun quickly proved to be no insignificant task, though – it's the longest article either of us can put our names on, with every word of prose written from scratch. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive independent work on Capri-Sun in existence. We got it to GA in early 2023 after a couple months' work, making it one of two GAs on a soft drink and the only one on a juice beverage. Then, it just sat for a while. But after dusting off the ol' thing and giving it the last few bits it was missing, it is with much pride and added sugar that we finally push this towards the finish line. :)"! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tamzin! I did not see until today this was your project. I read Capri-Sun on the front page and very much enjoyed it. Nice stuff! BusterD (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I stated in the discussion below the vote that I felt quite bad for whichever poor admin got tasked with closing the ADL RfC - props for being one of the ones to do so! The Kip 21:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: Thanks! Although I've got some bad news for you about your choice of barnstar. 😛 -- Tamzin (they|xe) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad haha. I'll leave it as-is, though - thought that counts and all that. The Kip 22:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it was you two helping The Wordsmith performing the close. I can't say I agree 100% with your close, which (by my reckoning) puts your pitch right in the sweet spot. Thanks for taking that responsibility with leek. BusterD (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have you know, BusterD, that according to (an otherwise pretty good piece by) the JTA, The Wordsmith, leek, and I are all a single editor. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 03:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha hahahahaha. Hahah! Hah! Hah! Huhhah! Hooooooohaaaaaah! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hhahahahahahahaha. Haha. Haha. ha. ha. ah. Ahem. BusterD (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would put you all in violat.... hahhhahahahahahahahaha! Hoooooohaaaaaaah! Ohhhhhhhh hahhhhhhhh! I'm sorry... BusterD (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First people called me a sock for being more than one person. Now they call me a sock for being less than one! -- Tamzin (they|xe) 04:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree wholeheartedly with Tamzin. Right as always. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an extraordinary claim. And we all know extraordinary claims have steep sourcing requirements. Mere accusation may have worked for some previously. Here you'd need proof AND a consensus. It's amazing how some people don't realize this almost always works in justice's favor. If ad hominem is all they've got, you've already won the argument. BusterD (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made me laugh with that revelation of yours. I don't know if you're willing to help me, and I know we might not click properly, but I think I can learn from you and maybe someday communicate on-wiki about how I operate. Treat yourself well, alright? Your mental health is the highest priority. Take care. The Night Watch (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing great, @The Night Watch. Walked on the beach under the full moon the other night, from bayside to seaside, where just by walking in a "straight" line along the shore the moon appears to move across the sky. That was really nice. Been spending most of my creative efforts on a novel-length translation effort into toki pona. We'll see how it goes. :) I hope you're treating yourself well too and enjoying your less-on-the-grid time. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talked with a wikifriend on the phone for the first time yesterday. I was really nervous but it was still fun in the end. Anyway, we talked briefly about what it means to get caught up in something bigger than yourself. You know, I think it was unfair for you too to get caught up in something like that. You're human, and you deserved better after spending ten years of your life here. I got trapped in a situation of my own making. I still want to say so many things about it…but I don't know when. Maybe after I get home eventually. The Night Watch (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally found a very short comment in a talk page comment, only about eight comments in the five years since the article (a BLP) was created.

Can I just delete the comment from the archive? It is slur that is awful in two ways. I will clean the stable so no one else must.

Could you advise me or point me to another editor?

Now for an entirely other subject. When I scan the behind-the-scene spaces here, you write most of my favorite content. Thank you for being here. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

@Neonorange: Aww shucks. Thanks! As to your question, glancing at your contribs, I can guess the comment you mean. I'd say just throw a {{redacted}} in place of the sentence in question. If the term were directed explicitly at her ("X is...", not "X looks like..."), RevDel might be appropriate, but here I'd say it falls just a tad short of the line. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 02:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. And in addition to thanks, you also get an image I found in a recent issue of the Economist; a fearsome cetacean—when a mistake is really egregious. Just as soon as I can fix my archives access to get a digital image plus the article and caption. I will email to you. Thanks again. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamzin, I hope you are doing great. I noticed that 'zinbot has not reviewed any RfDed redirects since 17 April 2024. Maybe it needs a fix? – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer: I think @TheresNoTime was looking into this, as they run that side of the bot. Hey Sammy! Fox sighting recently here! First in over a year. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 16:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a moment ^^ and oh cool, the foxes are back! 🦊 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*foxen -- Tamzin (they|xe) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. If you ever need an extra pair of hands to help maintain this tool in the future, I'd be happy to help out :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer @Pppery, also @Robertsky: Very sorry for the delay here.  Fixed There were a few issues, primarily that no one made the requested notification when Ahecht modified the template's output in April. Still, it's my fault this took so long to fix. Ideally I'd like to make the bot load a cached version of the template's output periodically, to remove the dependency on manual updates, but I'm still mulling over the best way to dynamically turn that output into a regex without letting through false positives. It was suggested at some point in the past that maybe my conservativism in looking for the exact output of {{subst:RfD|<redirect>}} was excessive, since while it does reduce the risk of patrolling vandalism, that's a very low risk to begin with, and any such vandalism would usually be low-visibility, plus vandalism can always occur after the patrolling regardless. So I'm tempted to just check for an {{#invoke:RfD... and leave it at that. But I'm not sure yet. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must've missed that box since all the others were talking only about breaking changes, not just HTML changes. My mistake. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2023, you made a comparison that has not sat well with me. The more I consider it, the more outrageous and detrimental to the Wikipedia project I find it. As part of an arbitration decision regarding the extremely controversial new religious movement Falun Gong ([9]), you state, regarding me, "All I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content".

This looks a lot like you were comparing antisemitism to anyone daring to mention what appear to be continued and organized attempts at manipulating Wikipedia's Falun Gong page, a reality that we in fact we have discussion of in peer-reviewed academic literature (especially Lewis, James. 2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, p. 30, 80-81, etc. Cambridge University Press). This is not in question with our Falun Gong, Shen Yun, and Epoch Times coverage. In turn, anyone foolish enough to edit in those quarters will in fact be interfacing with Falun Gong-aligned editors, many of them WP:SPAs, who will gang up to silence them, whether by endless talk page and process lawyering or more straightforward revert-warring. Falun Gong-aligned editors will attempt to manipulate the site's coverage to reflect the group's preferred narratives, hoping to return our coverage to the earlier, Falun Gong-approved version. In addition to this necessary but obnoxious work, said user might even have have to deal with a comment here and there like the one you made (quoted above).

I'm responsible for adding most contemporary reliable sources at Falun Gong and related articles, including information about their compound, founder-leader, and well beyond. That has made me an on-site target for editors who don't like that and aggressively attempt to get this information removed. It has led to me receiving threats, veiled and otherwise. As some other editors there noted, this arbitration request was a naked attempt to silence me from editing and adding yet more WP:RS to these articles. This time it backfired.

However, that above quoted comment from you was offensive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. It helped nothing. I write about a lot of new religious movement topics on Wikipedia (and only stumbled into Falun Gong-land when researching their claims about folklore). I have had to deal with various instances of attempted outing and attacks that no editor should have to endure on this site because of it, generally with zero support from Wikipedia at large. Like many new religious movements, Falun Gong much prefers to make grand claims of religious persecution rather than discussing the reality of the organization and its extremely well-funded, highly political media arms. It is no doubt going prepping its agenda for the upcoming presidential election, just like it did last time.

And I have to ask: Are you aware that the Falun Gong is a new religious movement entirely based around the words and whims of one man, Li Hongzhi? Would you have made the comparison to antisemitism and anyone who mentioned the Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia? Please retract your statement. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: I stand by the statement that no editor should attempt to disqualify another editor's fitness to edit based on their religion. That is true for Judaism, it is true for Falun Gong, and it is true for Scientology. That is not the same as attempting to disqualify someone based on improper coordinated editing that may in some cases correlate with religion. (I would know. I busted such a meatpuppetry ring in the BAPS topic area.) There is a difference between having religious views related to a subject one edits and editing at the behest of religious leadership. You, and a number of other editors, failed to heed that distinction, which is why I warned editors in the Falun Gong topic area generally, and you specifically, to knock it off. I stand by that, and it is hard to convey how disappointed I am that, half a year later, you not only refuse to accept the warning but have dwelled on it to such a degree that you have spontaneously demanded an apology. If I were still an admin, I'd be inclined to take this comment as prima facie evidence that you cannot edit civilly in the topic area, and impose a topic ban. But fortunately for both of us, I am not an admin anymore. Which means that, in fact, I couldn't take back what I said even if I wanted to, because it is substantively the same as the logged warning, which I lack the power to amend or rescind. If you would like to appeal that warning, you may do so as described at WP:CTOP § Appeals and amendments. But please do think on what I've said. Your fellow editors are your equals, regardless of religion, regardless of what the institutions affiliated with their religion might do. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 21:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this all until it came up again in a recent exchange at Falun Gong, where you're essentially handed WP:SPA editors there a shield to to deflect questions regarding their activity surrounding on article. And, yes, good thing you're not an admin then because I certainly don't appreciate the would-be threat, which is itself outrageous and inappropriate.

I strongly suggest you consider the difference between a hugely diverse and ancient religion and a new religious movement centered around a single man whose adherents seek to polish his movement's media coverage by way of manipulating Wikipedia articles and the fallout that can occur when conflate these huge differences between the two. And that's well-recorded by scholars in the area, whether you acknowledge it or not.

A reminder: We don't write articles around the preferences of religious groups, period, and when a religious org, like any other org, attempts to influence coverage, it needs to be called out explicitly and clearly. Invoking notions of antisemitism when editors like myself do exactly is absolutely unacceptable and merits strong pushback. All editors on the site are equal, yes, but not all edits: we have instance after instance or organized attempts at manipulating coverage here, and when you might have to chose to help those of us who go to bat against this kind of manipulation, it appears you instead decided to give them a little gift. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the difference between preventing organized manipulation of religious articles and targeting people for whatever religious beliefs they may privately hold, you should not be editing in the topic area. There was consensus to warn you for this last year. Please either accept this consensus or appeal it. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 00:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the organized manipulation was and is the problem, which I've repeatedly noted (and which peer-reviewed material from experts have noted), and your invocation of antisemitism in that context was outrageous and bizarre. Adherents don't call the shots on our coverage, organized or not, and they don't get special treatment: WP:RS rules the day. Telling the WP:SPAs to stick to WP:RS and WP:NPOV was the easy move there. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing against something I didn't say. If you want me to affirm that religious editors can't manipulate or POV-push any more than irreligious ones can, well then, of course, but I never said otherwise. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 02:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping a note to let you know, I have no issues with the thread you raised at ANI. You are someone who has been on the of a particular brand of editor, different to the one I end up on but no less militant and convinced of their "truth" of the world (yours are actually worse than mine.) I hold you in the greatest respect. Raising a question over the block and asking for a review was a perfectly reasonable thing to do and I welcome the oversight and have zero issues. Canterbury Tail talk 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: You beat me to posting something on your own talk. :) I hope you know I'm entirely genuine about you being a good admin, and I hope that the strength of my wording in the AN/I post (CC @Floquenbeam) didn't come off as... I don't know, histrionic. I really try to avoid playing the social capital games of adminspace these days (cf. File:On the backrooms (essay by Tamzin).oga), and to me here that just meant saying how I feel and seeing if anyone agreed, not preparing a meticulously worded objection that could start the papertrail for further proceedings, which ironically led to stronger wording than I've used in cases where I expected a dispute to land at ArbCom. In other words, with apologies to Pascal, if I had more anger, I would have written a nicer letter.

All the best. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 23:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name today so I just stopped by to drop you a note. I raised an eyebrow when I saw you helped close the ADL discussion because of the star of David on your user page. However, I could not find fault with the close. Another thing, if I had been actively editing when you stood at RFA I would have opposed based on your political stance. But now, I would not oppose a Tamzin RFA. Have a great weekend! Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this came out wrong Tamzin, I saw your name today so I came here to leave a note. I really think your work here is great. Today, I would want you to be an administrator. Good job on the ADL close you showed great impartiality. I think I have been staring at my screen too long and it came out wrong. Leeky has let me know it was not a good message. I will go to bed now. Lightburst (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: I believe you that it wasn't your intention to say anything hurtful here. And I do appreciate the vote of confidence (although these days I don't particularly care who thinks I'd be a good admin, one luxury of not being an admin). But I do think it's important to understand why theleekycauldron was taken aback at this, and frankly why I was taken aback. One of the main points I tried to make as an admin, which I still see as worth taking the time to fight over even now (see above), is that it's not appropriate to judge editors by their religion, sexuality, ethnicity, et cetera. Saying (or implying) that you saw someone as likely to be biased based on their religion/ethnicity is still doing that, even if your ultimate conclusion is a favorable one. The one-off favorable conclusion doesn't actually offset the initial biased assumption, and calls into question whether you would be inclined to (explicitly or not) use religion or ethnicity as the basis for criticism if you didn't agree with a Jew's close of an Israel-related RfC. You won't find me in the sanctions thread, because I don't want to play any part in the fucked-up way this site handles user conduct issues; but if I can give some constructive, restorative advice, I'd ask you to consider why it is that you think someone acknowledging affiliation with a specific group should be seen as potentially tainting their (quasi)administrative actions, and whether that's an approach that is fair to minority groups, given that members of less marginalized groups are often able to signal their membership without it being seen as remarkable, but are no less prone to bias (for instance, a man saying "I have a husband" might be seen as showing bias on LGBTQ topics, but a man saying "I have a wife" is not; yet over 95% of the U.S. has opinions on LGBTQ rights). Whichever way the thread goes, I think that's a good question for you—and anyone—to consider. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 16:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hey, you're a good friend, you know that? That was powerful and nice for you to reach out to me afterwards. Sorry you've had to put up with some embarrassing and annoying stuff from me lately, but that was really kind. You deserve this barnstar. The Night Watch (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch: I don't "put up" with anything. I haven't done anything I didn't want to do since July 2013. You're nice to chat with. :) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I worry about a little, that I say something wrong! I was always the "quirky loner kid", and social situations cause me high stress. Yes, even online ones, go figure. It's always a learning process for me. But yeah, you're fun to talk to. Don't overexert yourself, per usual :) The Night Watch (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to think about this. Polygnotus (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I try not to have opinions on categories when I can help it. Do you have a specific question? -- Tamzin (they|xe) 20:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A great attitude. Well, I am no expert on the matters at hand, being born boring, but I stumbled across it accidentally and I wondered if the claim that calling transgender men "male" could be slightly awkward is correct (and if so, why). Valereee has you listed as an expert on their userpage (and as willing to answer questions) so I figured I might as well ask. Polygnotus (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any authority, descriptive or prescriptive, that considers it correct to call trans men "men" but not to call them "male". As far as I know that's just a lexicological myth borne of hasty explanations of the gender/sex distinction. "Male" and "female" can refer to gender, "man" and "woman" to sex.

Ceterum censeo content categories delenda est. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my AI says male refers to sex and man refers to gender. Polygnotus (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why it is good to ask experts instead of trusting AI. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tamzin. I don't think we've ever interacted on WP but there's a first time for everything, right?

Your userpage has frankly given me a lot of pause recently. Especially your "On the backrooms" off-the-cuff essay (I read the captions instead though!) and this: if you find yourself spending more time talking about the people who write wikipedia than being one of those people, remember that you can fix that today

I indeed have found myself in that camp and I'm actually studying sociology at the moment as well... so the "social capital" of WP has taken on a much more sad meaning to me. Knowing that an ugly but I guess inevitable part of society has made its way onto this project is... yeah, pretty sad. petty. Waste of time. Pretty much WP:ANI in a nutshell. There is also literally no reason for us--for me--to not be nice to fellow editors. It's easy to bring out our 'mean' sides when a screen separates us.

I'd like to do better with my article writing and constructive contribution. And thank you for steering me (and I'm sure many others) towards the right direction, towards the things that actually MATTER. Every article makes an amazing impact for crying out loud. I always find myself on here researching things I'm studying, and oftentimes, WP beats any other lame search result Google could give me. And that is thanks to the tireless (and often thankless) hard work of editors like Vami--I'd like to be a completionist, to honor his good name with good editing... not a quarreler. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The LGBT Barnstar
		hi, i don't really know exactly what to put here but i guess i'll just thank you, tamzin, for inspiring me to edit. you were really an inspiration. and even though i don't edit much i'm forever indebted to you in helping me find a new hyperfixation and transitioning from a wikipedia reader to editor (sometimes) and eepy girl. have a splendiferous day <3 pali sina li pona e nasin mi. pauliesnug 10:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tamzin, the concept of gender nonconformity came up in a discussion and I know you've done some good work on LGBT-related topics. I figured I'd ask if you have any ideas or are interested on working on this? No issues if not, I realize that most Wikipedians already have crazy to do lists as it is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: I think I have my hands full right now with rewriting Transgender sexuality, and then a few projects lines up after that too. Thanks for the offer though. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 01:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Most Wikipedians have a lot on their plate but I figured the worse I could get is a no. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from shitposting on Wikipedia as you did at Andrew Tate. Your edits have been hidden as part of a collapsed discussion.

• If you are engaged in shitposting with another editor, please discuss the off-topic shit with the editor at their talk page, not the article talk page.
• If you are engaged in any other form of shitposting, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's shitposting guidleines, and please do not continue to make shitposts that appear shit. CNC (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Holy crap, I had my finger on the rollback button! Knitsey (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very homophobic against @Drmies. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 01:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking up for me, Tamzin. I'm having a hard enough time already with my identity, and now I'm getting collapsed? That's almost like being canceled, isn't it? I'm being oppressed. That's it: I'm going to pet my dog and make creme brulees for my kids. (Is that a gay enough thing to do? I'm so confused.) Drmies (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to switch to your brand of coffee. Wow! Thanks for that - JohnInDC (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnInDC: A few weeks clean from it, actually! Did have some Wawa store-brand Arnold Palmer midway through, though. Plus maybe I was a little late on my lithium. Anyways, hope the list is of some use plotting a way forward. My schedule's a bit wonky the next few weeks, running up and down the Northeast Corridor to deal with two and a half familial medical crises, but I hope to get some editing time in on the D.C. article, and I think I've found a few people who'll have time to do deeper dives than I can.

On that note, if any talkpage watchers are in D.C.: 1) I will be there from late on the 5th to midday on the 9th, with moderate availability, and am always happy to grab lunch or coffee (well, not actual coffee, see above) with just about anyone, schedule permitting; and 2) feel free to check out Washington, D.C. and its talk page for discussion of what might need to be done to keep it at FA. Or in the latter case if you're not in D.C. but just like a challenge. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 21:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your interesting Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Opinion

May I suggest linking your work from PubPeer entry on the academic article in question, to give it more visibility? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't have the fight in me for all that, but if you'd like to, by all means! -- Tamzin (they|xe) 17:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin Done (I left a comment linking to your piece). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to you because of your excellent work on Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, as well as the discussion at Talk:F1NN5TER about doxxing. The question of how to treat sources that are at least somewhat reliable but are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as prejudiced (either broadly or based on protected class) has been repeatedly discussed on Wiki. Therefore, I think that writing up a „how-to-deal-with-this“ might be useful, titled something along the line of WP:PREJUDICEDSOURCES. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment in the RFC, but had been keeping an eye on it. That was one of the most clearly written and well rationed closes I've seen in awhile, so I thought I'd give you a whale to help with your cetacean needs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, her need for cetaceans is seriously overstated. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @ActivelyDisinterested! I may have plenty of cetaceans, but you can never have too many... is something I imagine a B-movie mad scientist character saying. (See also Anderson, M.T. (2005). Whales on Stilts.) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, thank you for the clear and informative close. Would you consider bolding it is not made at the behest of the Supreme Court of India? It's just that the media has been synthesizing together "Supreme Court demands Wikipedia to remove name" and "Wikipedia removes name" together in headlines. Svampesky (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: I actually did have it boldfaced in the first draft, but I decided I didn't want to put too fine a point on that and come off as hostile. I think it's best to let people read the full close and focus on whichever details they want to. But I might be convinced otherwise if there's particularly glaring media misunderstandings. Can you point to ones you've seen? I only see [10], which predates my close. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 18:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu headline you referenced and Business Standard: Kolkata rape case: SC orders financial probe, Wikipedia to remove names [11]. They are both broadsheets or newspapers of record, so anything printed in them (including synthesized headlines) would be trusted by the general reader. Svampesky (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky: But these both seem to be about the order and the WMF's response, not the RfC's outcome? -- Tamzin (they|xe) 20:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name was preemptively removed before the RfC closed, and the synthesized headlines give the impression that this removal was done in response to a court order. I believe we need to strongly emphasize that we didn't do that, in the case of further misreporting/synthesized headlines. Svampesky (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'm still not sold that boldfacing that bit would do more good than harm. Imagine a mischaracterizatiom in the opposite direction: "Western Wikipedians reject Indian Supreme Court's authority". It was a delicate edge to walk, and I'm still inclined to let the full close speak for itself. Do others have thoughts? Pings @ActivelyDisinterested & also @Johnuniq, Cabayi, and Chaotic Enby, since they thanked me for the close. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 22:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think boldfacing it could help, as I don't really see that mischaracterization as being equally harmful (we are, indeed, not making editorial decisions based on court authorities), while it might otherwise be missed by journalists conflating our close with the Supreme Court order.

However, you make a good point that we shouldn't have this close appear to be coming from a Western perspective, and input from Indian Wikipedians more knowledgeable with their country's media and cultural norms would be far superior to my own thoughts on that whole matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done on Wikipedia about news sources incorrectly reporting the details. The close is clear about the issues involved and the rejection of the court order as a controlling factor. Personally I don't see a need to bold those words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly confident that, unfortunate though it is, the ship has already sailed on our making the parties to the court case, the court itself, the broader stakeholders, and the world at large aware of the fact that this was in essence a voluntary decision predicated on internal policies and considerations. Bluntly, the community was asleep at the wheel on this one: the ultimate decision was more or less a foregone conclusion, and the time to codify it as such was before Wikipedia was made party to the case--or at the very least, before the ruling was rendered. Now we have left outside institutions in general, and the Supreme Court and government of India in particular, with the possible impression that we acceded to their authority and judgment.

That could very well factor in to a future decision by the court (or any number of other entities) to similarly attempt to force our hand on content they deem actionable under the domestic law of a particular country. With very little guarantee that next time our own eventual analysis of the issue will align our consensus decision with what is wanted by the court/sovereign seeking to enforce its decision on any such future occasion. This is a bad precedent that didn't need to happen, which could play into future tensions between the community, outside parties, and the WMF. I'm not sure exactly what they are, but I am certain there are lessons to be learned from this situation about seeking broader community input in such cases long before the point of such problematic outcomes. SnowRise 06:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but the point that brought me here in the first place: I too wish to thank Tamzin for taking on the highly visible close and making a good account of themselves at the task. SnowRise 06:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wanting to make a political statement should consider adding something to their user page. This kind of issue will arise again and each case will have to be handled on its merits. Pointing to some bold text on an old talk page won't help. If an article were written like that close, it would get an immediate FA rating. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done. And my compliments are not given too often, so take it for what it's worth, but you did a truly good job on this close. Seraphimblade 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, @Seraphimblade, and @The Herald below. I wonder if there'd be any interest in an essay on writing difficult closes? Not the consensus-weighing part—hopefully anyone taking on a high-profile close already knows how to do that—but the strategies of how to phrase things in a way that will leave everyone... maybe not happy, but at least not enraged. Or maybe someone's already written such an essay, I don't know. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 18:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an essay I'd love to read. If there's already one, a link would be so helpful. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know of any, but there really probably should be. Seraphimblade 02:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on that close, quite impressive. I'm looking forward to reading your close on this (so far hypothetical) rfc:[12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It begins "First, we must consider the arguments raised regarding tenure, neutrality, cross-wiki experience, and representativeness of the global community as a whole", and ends "There being no consensus, but a null outcome not being an option, I find that the least bad solution is to go with the person who satisfies all four of those criteria while having done the least to upset anyone. My first thought, Example, is actually only attached on a few wikis, and for whatever reason is sockblocked on Commons. Instead I select MediaWiki message delivery, albeit with some trepidation given its erstwhile 2-minute block on enwiki, and given the time it added [[Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo|bison]] to a few thousand pages and I had to clean it up. In the highly likely event that this close is overturned but no new consensus is found, my fallback pick is whoever closes the overturn discussion." -- Tamzin (they|xe) 07:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for writing that, made my day! @Ravensfire, you don't want to miss this, but careful with the soda. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, you might find this [13][14] a bit interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that brilliant Kolkata RfC close. I was just happy to see your name and edit summary on my watchlist, and I knew it will be an amazing well detailed close. Arigato :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for what you told my friend Graham! - I thought of you earlier today when I added a RS to an article that was on DYK 10 years ago, my story today, - I think of you often that way, with thanks for having pointed out that not all singers' biographies are of equal quality. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please "close" this RfC? Contentious topic, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,206 views (675.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Celebrity Number Six (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Number Six) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TompaDompa, and thank you for the thorough GA review! I actually have a second candidate for this pending at GAN right now, this one a proper AfD save that I was even a delete on initially, Death of Richard Swanson (AfD). -- Tamzin (they|xe) 18:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Celebrity Number Six you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Celebrity Number Six for comments about the article, and Talk:Celebrity Number Six/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any theory what's behind these [15] edits? Fwiw, I think [16] counts as "published". I keep reverting because It's right there in The New Yorker!!! Wikipedians don't question The New Yorker!!! Without good reason, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: My theory has been that, due to our past own goal, that section gets an unusual amount of attention for the personal life section on a relatively low-profile BLP, leading to a lot of tilting at windmills by people who care more about the idea of being right than actually being right. It's certainly an unusual pattern of edits, not just from that IP either, but about sufficiently disparate topics that I doubt it's socking. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 21:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's that the Face Reveal on your image! 77.77.218.177 (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, sorry, this may not be worth this message, but I thought I'd let you know that the last two diffs you linked in your comment in today's Lightburst ANI thread ("commented again" and "replied") are not the ones you meant to link, I believe (the correct ones are just one away for each though, so it's not like the sources for the quoted text are impossible to find). Feel free to ignore/remove this message :) Felida (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felida97: Oh, thanks! It was the issue that comes up if you cycle through diffs using "next". Fixed now. :) -- Tamzin (they|xe) 00:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you over this, Tamzin, but since you just closed the split proposal, I'm hoping you saw the "poisoning the well" comment directed towards me just before.[17] One of the diffs they do show is me literally giving an apology. I get they think my conduct is subpar but I don't think laying that all out there (complete with the aforementioned PA and others in there) and then wanting me to discuss content in the next paragraph is fair. Could you by chance remove the PAs? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney: I am not an admin, and closed the discussion just as any ol' content editor chipping in. If you have a user conduct concern, you should bring that to WP:AE under ARBIPA, or to WP:AN/I if you prefer worse feedback. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 01:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	pona
	sina pali mute. sina utala e ike la, sina pona tawa mi. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of Richard Swanson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of WikiOriginal-9 -- WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Death of Richard Swanson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of Richard Swanson for comments about the article, and Talk:Death of Richard Swanson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of WikiOriginal-9 -- WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin. I completely misread your comment so I removed my reply. Would appreciate if you would remove yours too since that's not how I intend to respond. It's getting late where I am so I'll see about writing a proper response tomorrow. -Fastily 06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 06:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: For what it's worth, I really avoid participating at AN/I as much as I can help it. So maybe it conveys how alarmed I was at your treatment of Clovermoss and Fathoms Below that I felt I had to make an exception. Or maybe it doesn't; not like you're under any obligation to think I have good judgment. Either way, I've said my piece in the thread, and I'll leave it to calmer minds than mine (that's a joke, it's AN/I we're talking about) to figure out where to go from here. So no need to ping on reply or anything like that. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 08:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template talk:Archive top yellow#Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2024, same css spillover problem as the others you fixed. – 2804:F1...86:83AA (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliiiiiiiiiiii weren't you gonna do this? -- Tamzin (they|xe) 20:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it now. And yes I was meaning to do so earlier, but I forgot. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]