User talk:ToadetteEdit

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

Llanthomas Castle Mound

I would like to have a conversation about your recent review of Llanthomas Castle Mound. Is this the right forum to introduce a lengthy and detailed posting? LiamGM (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@LiamGM, it's okay to post your concerns here. I am ready to help people. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I thank you for all your volunteer roles that for you do on Wikipedia. I am reaching out to you because you state on your user page that “ToadetteEdit … tries to do their work right”. I appreciate how hard it must be to get up to speed in a diverse and specialist subject areas including medieval castles and Welsh medieval history.

I have appended a subset of the many motte and bailey sites already in article space. The articles are small in content and low in citations/references. The common factor is that they have all being though the authoritative and rigorous national scheduling process for historical monuments, like LCM. Effectively, their notability has been established by regulatory bodies e.g. Cadw in Wales, English Heritage in England etc. Clearly, this has been recognised by the article reviewers.

Given that the feedback from my first reviewer was ill-informed, let me expand upon the process of scheduling. Cadw have been tasked by the Welsh government with the specification of the criteria needed for the legal protection of historical assets in Wales. Cadw identify the buildings and monuments that meet their criteria. Scheduled historical assets receive legal protection under the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Sites are assessed by professional archaeologists. If scheduled, the Welsh government takes on the responsibility to fund Cadw to maintain a perpetual watching brief on the scheduled site. A field monument warden, a professional archaeologist is assigned to the scheduled monument, which includes regular site visits. I can provide contact details for the PhD qualified field warden for LCM, if required.

I hope you will review your decision about LCM, and come to the same conclusion as the reviewers of the articles below. Note a medieval motte and bailey castle that does not have existing evidence of the bailey is called a mound, tump or twt:

• Bledisloe Tump.
• Castle Tump.
• Castle Tump, Dymock.
• Stow Green, St Briavels.
• Twmpath Castle.

* Wormelow Tump.

LiamGM (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@LiamGM, sorry for the late response, but you can add more sources as you like. I agree with your statement above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If you agree that notability is proven and is a topic already in article space, why did you not approve the article? Specifically, "Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines". TIA. LiamGM (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

because in the beginning, I thought it doesn't meet notability guidelines based on the sources in the article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, so promptly. Can you you please approve moving the draft into article space? LiamGM (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Closing wikiproject-related MfDs

Hi ToadetteEdit. Please note when closing MfDs relating to wikiprojects (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris) that the outcome generally effects more than one page. See User talk:Joe Roe#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_11#Template:WikiProject_Donald_Trump. – Joe (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There are also various subpages that have not been dealt with. – Joe (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe, understood. I wasn't aware of the consequences that result from closing mfds. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton MFD

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris, you closed the MFD, which included redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. Hillary Clinton was never a US president or vice-president, so I believe that this redirect was an error. Can you please take a look? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, I was attempting to create the second nomination but struggled due to weird Twinkle not creating the second nomination page, and I had to do the nomination all manually which I gave up. Any assistance? ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

What assistance? I am not an admin. I am asking you to reconsider your closure because I believe that the reasoning was illogical. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Reminder:CVUA

Hi, little reminder since you haven't replied in CVUA for 2 weeks. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of battles in Belgium

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Dronufie (01:08, 19 August 2024)

I would like to add a page about a physician to wikipedia. Can you help me with getting started? --Dronufie (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dronufie, welcome to Wikipedia! Please read our introduction to editing. To create an article, use the Article wizard. Hope that helps. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, ToadetteEdit,

I saw your comment at your request for global permissions when you withdrew your request. I'm sorry that you are discouraged but I wanted to reassure you that the opposition doesn't seem to be about the quality of your editing but just the fact that you seem to be pursuing acquiring a lot of permissions over a short period of time. You already have pending changes, rollbacker and new page reviewer permissions on this Wikipedia which is quite a lot to achieve for an account of just one year and three months. There are editors who've been active a decade or more who have no advanced permissions at all! I waited until I had been editing Wikipedia for two years before starting an RFA and even then I was criticized for not having enough experience.

Trust comes with time and productive editing and requesting a global permission requires even a higher level of trust as you could impact smaller wikis that don't have a lot of oversight. The potential for inadvertent damage is high there unless you really know what you're doing and I think that those who opposed your request just want to see over a longer period of time that you can handle the permissions you have already have been granted. Finally, there will always be editors who view your behavior as hat collecting so you have to realize that and be prepared for those objections from editors who are not shy about voicing their opinions and doubts. Just know that your entire contribution history might be examined and scrutinized which can put many editors off from even attempting to ask for any permissions.

On the plus side, you look like you are doing good work on this Wikipedia so keep at it! Just wait a while, six months or, better yet, a year, before inquiring about getting even more responsibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to echo every single word Liz said. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The presidential navbox RM

Hello. Please re-read the discussion. There is a viable third option to "Keep" and "Delete": put the presidential material in the overly large navboxes in expandable sections. You are so very quick with your relistings and other RM edits that I'm concerned you may not have read the discussion closely enough in order to miss the third option. Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seneb-Neb-Af

Hi, can I ask why you closed this as no consensus? No editors in the discussion have argued for a keep, and no one has seriously advanced redirect as an alternative either. -- asilvering (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I was coming here to talk about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Ink Awards. Generally speaking, non-admins should never be closing as no consensus. My foolish closes cost me my first run for adminship. True. Please stop closing as no consensus. BusterD (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit, I am disappointed. Less than a week after I told you to slow down, you have three complaints about your closes. Let me try again, this time with a little more force.

First, I cannot emphasize this enough: When you are closing discussions, you need to follow WP:ADMINACCT. See WP:NACD: Non-admin closers are accountable to the policies at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:UNINVOLVED. Repeated non-adherence to these policies may result in being topic banned from closing discussions.

There are four outstanding requests for reconsideration of closes you made on this talk page. § Requesting review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton MFD has received an inadequate response which completely misses the point of Jonesey95's request. Randy Kryn has a similar request at § The presidential navbox RM (which was actually a TFD). You have edited since both of these were left, so there is no excuse for you not to have already answered these questions. And there are two discussions here, which in fairness were left after your most recent edit (though asilvering's was only a single minute later).

Considering your track record of diving in too fast, I am certain there would be support for another pblock (and if you are not immediately responsive to all four outstanding requests for reconsideration, I would support one to prevent further unaccountable closes). And depending on how you respond to these concerns, there very well might be support for a sitewide block per WP:IDHT.

Slow. Down. Consider taking a break from closing XfDs. But at the very least, respond to all four outstanding requests for comment on your own closure before making any further edits. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)