User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:ToadetteEdit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

please initiate another discussion of you have any questions. Toadette^Edit! 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint Commission of Orthodox Churches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Bhathal AfD closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you close this as redirect?

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

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

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

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

{{Historical American Documents}} close

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your RfA

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

Proposed deletion of Regional Ring Road (Egypt)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melanie Challenger draft

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

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

I think so…? BeacHal1 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I understood it, @BeacHal1. Let another review the draft, I have no time in doing this. Toadette^Edit! 11:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A story...

WITHDRAWN

Considering the below, I will apply after a year or two when I hope everyone would support me. All further discussion should be reinitiated as a new thread. Toadette^Edit! 06:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah I (a random ECF editor) am sure they have good intentions! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't conflate not being !voted for to be given the admin toolset as being thought of as a poor editor. The bar for RfA is quite high. But, it is your RfA, so you can do what you wish (withdraw or keep it open).

If you do plan to withdraw, simply let myself or one of the other WP:CRATS know. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, I am now considering withdrawal, see cmt below. Toadette^Edit! 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Apart from all the advice that's already been given, I suggest that you will succeed eventually at RfA. But what you should do is get a couple of admins who are willing to nominate you. That has the added advantage that you'll get some advice on what you should be working on, and when they believe that you are ready for a second run. As Amakuru said, there's no rush. I was here for eight years before I said to my nominators "now's a good time". You won't have to wait that long, but do seek guidance from those who often nominate candidates. Schwede 66 05:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is always a brave move to go for WP:RFA, and especially with the recent changes. I echo the sentiments of many who have commented there, just take your time, keep building a good reputation for editing, problem-solving, negotiation skills, or whatever you think your niche is. Come back in an year or so with a solid background of admin-like tasks and you should be fine. Good luck to you, don't be put off, Wikipedia needs good, honest editors like you, now more than ever. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh hello @The Rambling Man: good to see you around here... And to Toadette, I totally agree with all that's been said above. Being opposed at RFA has nothing to do with being a good or bad editor, it's just opinions about whether you've got experience in enough different areas to be given the added responsibility of doing things like deleting articles and blocking people. Personally I was here more than 10 years before I became an admin so there's really no rush. It's up to you what you enjoy, but I'd recommend getting some more content experience before anything else... Try and get an article or two up to WP:GA level and build from there. You don't need to feel alone, there are plenty of people to help, and you'll be fine. — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh hello @Amakuru: good to see you too. And Toadette, in the essence of Amakuru, there are plenty of us here to help you build up something content-wise. I'm a bit rusty on policies and manual of style, but I think I've got more than enough to help you out with a decent run at a good article. What are you interested in, is there an article you think you could work on together with me and others, to get it up to a really good standard? The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru:, @The Rambling Man:, thanks for the positive feedbacks; ~~but a year is too long~~ and bringing an article to good article status is difficult. Why is there even policy that one must be a significant contributor of an article to nominate it? Toadette^Edit! 13:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is a year too long? What is the rush? We generally do not let editors who have not done significant work to an article make a Good Article Nomination (GAN) because they are then credited with something other people have done. And if the work to get an article ready for GAN is too difficult, it is unclear if you are able to judge an article ready in the first place. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding on to this, I personally think writing a GA is easy and very doable. I'm willing to mentor you through the process if you wish at any point too take me on the offer, Toadette. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As for the GA, ok. For the tenure, it feels that a year is not that long, but I may expect unforseen wikibreaks and other events that may unfortunately impact my editing. Toadette^Edit! 14:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you please answer about why a year is too long or what the rush is? I see this repeatedly in your correspondances. You make a statement, someone asks why or points out an issue with it, and you simply strike it out and essentially say 'Nevermind'. Perhaps I'm just not reading your response right. Are you saying that your rush is because you feel school might impact your activity and therefore jeopardize a bid for adminship? At your ORCP you did this as well. You said you wouldn't run for 1.5 years. Someone said ORCP was for 3-6 months, so you changed it to 6 months. Then after a week you closed it and immediately RFA'd, despite those statements. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The matter of haste is not all about school matters. I wanted to keep backlogs low, but the real thing is, you said that I make a statement, another approaches and tells the correct thing, and then I modify my statement, seeing that the correction made by the other is correct and accurate. But this can sometimes lead to issues, such as the DRV of a closure of a TfD discussions which I amended by the request of an involved editor even though there is actual and obvious consensus to split the template. Back to the matter that "a year is long" and the associated rush, is that I wanted to build up experience, especially when things are boring during the break, but I wanted to say that, being in a rush is not good, especially for someone who is unaware that somethig they try to do can cause issues and controversy. I spoke to myself about the cons of hasty behavior and though that it is appropriate to do thing step by step, and recognizing by what Netherzone said in a thread that the website is not a game, or a race, or a place to obtain rights competitively, and that Wikipedia has no end and is not compulsory. I should better cool down and revisit every concern, and rethinking what I would have done instead, and closing the poll and starting an RfA right away is an unwise act. I've initially set it to 1.5 years so that the community would forgive the pblock and copyvio among other, but after a suggestion from an experienced editor and rereading the notice, I've later changed it to 6 months, but a recent salt prompted me to start the RfA, forgeting the period. As summary, I was rushing the entire time to keep backlogs down as possible as well as improving my experience, especially during my free time. Toadette^Edit! 14:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I've closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW, as it's not likely to pass. Having seen a few of these in my time, I think its current state is the sweet spot where a good amount of politely-worded feedback has been given. I hope some of the comments editors left are helpful to you? Of course, I'd reiterate the general sentiment in that discussion that acknowledged you're here to help improve the project, and echo the comments above. You will probably find editing collaborations with other editors (like TRM's offer above) far more enjoyable, and a great way to grow as an editor. All the best, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And I've reverted your close. I appreciate your interest, but I don't think a discussion should be closed when voting hasn't even started yet. I understand that non-bureaucrats in good standing can close RfAs early, but I think this is too hasty and controversial. Cremastra (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: Does anyone else besides you feel this way? Because I think your re-opening of this RFA was a serious mistake, both for the community and the candidate. Do you really, honestly, believe this has any chance of success, such that it is worth it, both for the candidate and the community, to continue? I don't think the close was controversial at all (I don't see anyone besides you disagreeing with it?), and I don't think it was hasty (plenty of time has passed to determine that this is a no-chance RFA). I'd ask you to reconsider, particularly on the point of whether others share your view or not. (And maybe ask some other editors what they think?) Levivich (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 called the reopen good. That's the only one I've seen. I do think it would have been good to discuss somewhere before reverting. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't noticed that. Well that's two people then :-) Levivich (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I think candidates should have the explicit option to close their own RfA, or to let it run it's course. We shouldn't be getting involved outside of those two options. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

They do already: Do not close any requests ...unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application (from WP:RFA). Primefac (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you skipped some important stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I initially read Lee's comment as "the candidate should be able to withdraw their RFA", which is allowed. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I figured there'd be a good reason! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There's potential my comment wasn't fantastically written. I believe exactly what Primefac says. Those are the only two options. If we want uninvolved, non-crats to be closing RfAs, then we should change that policy. I don't think a close when crats have specifically asked if they wish to withdraw and they've said no is helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

They actually said "Not yet, but soon" almost 24 hours ago. But I do get what you're saying, and you did ask them to specifically let you know when they were ready for it to be closed. I just...well, I kind of hate to see this person maybe offline trying to get themselves back on an even keel, then coming back in here to discover that, from their point of view, things have gotten worse. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean some other person shouldn't close it if it's snowing and the candidate has 1. expressed pain and 2. stopped editing for nearly 24 hours. I'm really sorry this was reopened and now has to be considered a controversial close. Valereee (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit, I don't know about these other folks, but I consider you a Wikipedia hero. For several reasons. A principled and open-minded editor, willing to take a chance and give second looks. Admin? That's a big leap and carries its own limitations, so maybe luck is on your side. Lots of love here from several editors, and maybe take them up on their offers (it would at least result in some interesting conversations, yes?). thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, thanks for the positive feedback! Toadette^Edit! 13:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for running. I hope you'll withdraw soon. I think you've been given about as much good advice and feedback as you're likely to get out of this process, and it's not really designed for those purposes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Toadette...I'm a failed RfA candidate myself. I've been through very difficult times as well after that (December 2023); I completely understand what you're going through right now. I know, it's a very difficult time – I've endured that as well. You're a great editor, you're in experienced areas where I'm not confident to enter (e.g. CfD), and...countless other cool facts about ya! Now, I've been in your place before. I have cried multiple times after the RfA (it crumbled like a wall) and even very recently for countless reasons with that as well because it's just too much to handle. But I want you to let you know that I'm here, okay? Please do feel free to send an email, talk page message on my talk page, a DM on Discord...those communications are fine. I also, for those reasons earlier, want to make sure that you're not the only one who's endured this difficult and healing process after a tough RfA. Anyhow and regardless, you're an amazing editor whose contributions will be always valued, I promise! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tails Wx, thanks for the positive feedback! Toadette^Edit! 13:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No problem! Don't hesitate to ask further questions about my experience that you'd like to know or for any help! And, just to let ya know again, I'm always here if you want to communicate on or off-Wiki. Say, I hear mentoring below...I'm a mentor! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE I am now withdrawing the nomination. Toadette^Edit! 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consider 'adoption'?

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

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

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

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

Soni, I will consider someone to adopt me. I do not know where to start. Toadette^Edit! 14:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty much just "find an experienced user you can trust, ask them if they're willing to mentor you". There's probably a dozen admins who have commented on your talk in the last week already. I am sure at least a couple of them will be happy to show you the intricacies of editing. From their comments above, I can't tell if @The Night Watch has the bandwidth to do so, but they'd be an excellent person to teach if willing. Soni (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly answer a few questions, but I sadly don’t have the time and stability right now to be a long-term mentor. However there are lots of people here that may be willing to teach. The Night Watch (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Like many things in life, receiving unexpected but well intentioned criticism hurts — take a well deserved break and come back afresh. The project will still be here, and there will always be opportunities to learn and grow :) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses

I am indefinitely banned from closing XfDs, broadly constructed. I should also consider to halt participation as it is constantly making me a lot of problems. Toadette^Edit! 06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have overturned this in my individual capacity as an uninvolved administrator, per WP:NACD. This was pretty clearly a "close call [or] controversial decision", and hence should be left to an administrator. If a NAC close of such a debate is to occur, a detailed and cogent closing rationale explaining how the strength of arguments were weighed amongst the numerically equivalent participants is generally required. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel, what do you mean as a close call? Toadette^Edit! 11:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly an obvious decision, and probably required a detailed closing rationale. It should not be closed by a non-administrator - especially not without any sort of explanation as to how the close was reached. Daniel (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

But the real deal, in my view, is that redirect !votes are more stronger than keep !votes, but this is one of the many that editors overturn my decisions. I am yet confused on the difference between a close call and a non close call, and how there is actual consensus to keep the article (ping WikiCleanerMan)? Toadette^Edit! 11:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the following comments at DRV over the past two days about your closes: OwenX (administrator), Star Mississippi (administrator), OwenX (II), SportingFlyer (very experienced editor), Jclemens (former administrator). The consensus is you are rather consistently unable to close discussions in line with the paramaters set out for non-administrators at WP:NACD. You failing to understand that this was a "close call [or] controversial decision" is additionally concerning. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Daniel, you are right. But the comments made by OwenX, Star Mississippi, SportingFlyer and Jclemens is almost prompting me to get a bit upset and even deciding to retire from the community. I try to be well know and to expand my experience, but the community are wanting me not to close AfDs, and even doesn't like my activity there. I cannot say about my 200+ !votes casted there, but I am also considering abandoning AfD for an extended period or even forever. I couldn't consider this anymore. :-( Toadette^Edit! 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So, to be clear, this edit of mine is what you find disheartening? Might I suggest that if that sort of a terse review causes you to get a bit upset, then closing AfDs may not be for you. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Toadette! In honesty, the best way to expand your experience with AfDs is simply to participate. I'm always frustrated when a non-administrator closes an AfD I've participated in unless the outcome is clearly obvious - think snow keeps - because non-administrators do not have the ability to take into account the full range of outcomes in a discussion, since we non-admins can't delete articles. Also, while we could always use good people to close discussions, AfDs desperately need participants more than they need people to close discussions. I'd strongly encourage you to keep participating if you enjoy AfDs and don't worry about closing anything for now. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Echoing Jclemens, based on that response, closing XfD's is definitely not for you. I'd ask that you voluntarily stop closing them indefinitely, as i) there is clearly a lack of understanding of the parameters set out for non-administrators at WP:NACD and b) I don't believe you are robust enough to be part of the process of having closes reviewed. Given recent disruption caused by your closes, as noted by others in the diffs above, this voluntary undertaking would likely stave off any more formal restrictions being required. Daniel (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfA

Don’t worry about the RfA, I understand how you might be feeling right now even if i can’t relate. Even the best admins on this wiki right now had a failed RfA or two. You also tested the waters and I congratulate you on that. Just wait a little while longer and don’t take the criticism to heart. Use the criticism to make yourself into a better editor. You are a fine editor now and I’m sure you’ll eventually get the mop but right now it’s not what the community wants. For your next RfA if you do choose so reach out to someone to nominate you as while some people do like self noms it is not always the best option especially if you’re not a 15k plus edits and 5 year tenure editor. I think you should continue to grow as an editor and use the criticism to grow instead of letting it get to your head. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to echo this. I would just wait it out a bit longer, like maybe an additional year or two. Give yourself time to grow and learn. I didn't seek adminship until after I'd been editing heavily for about two years. (I was granted adminship in 2013 and signed up in 2006, but hadn't edited heavily until around 2010-2011 or so.) I was extremely lucky that my nomination kind of predated a lot of the more strict mindsets with adminship, but I still ran into pushback from people who felt that I had more to learn. You're coming into this at (hopefully) the tail end of all of that, so don't take it too badly. Honestly, I don't think many of us admins could have succeeded during that particular point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Historical American Documents

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Historical American Documents. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --wooden superman 06:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't see or reply but I shoudl say that there was consensus to split the template, only for another to criticize me and ultimately changed the result which was logically against consnsus. Toadette^Edit! 15:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

COI

Hi! What is your connection with CaseOh (mentioned at the RfA) and K._Annamalai and why do you believe your opinion supersedes the community consensus? Regardless of the RfA, I think this user's edits need a closer look as those edits underline a larger issue with policy. The ANI ban may have expired, but with the actions leading to many DRVs, I still think the project space clerking remains a problem. cc @Mox Eden, @Curbon7 Star Mississippi 12:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I think it's unlikely that this editor has a meaningful conflict of interest with CaseOh, who is a popular streamer on TikTok/Youtube; more likely, they're just a fan. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope so @Moneytrees but my UPE radar has been going off here for some time. Star Mississippi 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, I cannot be surprised of the matter, how is my clerking a problem? I have no relation with these two topics. Toadette^Edit! 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, so why do you want to move them to mainspace when consensus is against it to the degree protection has been applied. Do you understand that even if your RFA had been successful, you couldn't do that? I'm sorry, but if you truly don't understand how your clerking is a problem despite bans and multiple AfD closes overturned, you do not have the competence to edit in administrative areas. Star Mississippi 12:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As said above, I am considering abandoning XfDs, including voting them, but the issue gives a clue that I should actually stop editing the entirely of the Wikipedia space and rather focusing on vandal fighting, reviewing pages and revisions and of course creating and improving articles. In the matter of the two, I would not move them since it may lead to a speedy deletion, but recently I've changed my mind to not focus on these two titles and just moving on. At first I see that it is really unfair but then realised after multiple combats that these topics are not notable enough and do not guarantee entries. In case of CaseOh, the time I saw it in mainspace, I didn't considered taking it to AfD as notability is dubious, even though I'd seen vandalism to te page. As of the latter BJP politican topic, sources that were found seem to pass the general notability guidelines, only to see that several analysis be multiple editors revealed that these sources do not pass the GNG. It feels right now that the community is currently challenging me and won't respect my actions, and expecting that I would soon lose the trust and mercy of the community and be hopeless and "orphaned" and possibly not crediting my positive contributions to the encyclopedia and the behind the scenes of it. Toadette^Edit! 14:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you should focus on article writing as that's why we're all here. Outside of questions at the Help Desk or Teahouse, there is never a need to edit project space. I'm not sure about reviewing pages, but if you thin you have a good understanding of policies, you could do that too. It's not about whether the community respects your actions. They're incorrect, which is why they're being overturned. Star Mississippi 01:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of article from AfC list

Hi @ToadetteEdit,

You recently reviewed an article I submitted at Draft:History of the Milwaukee Bucks. I accept your judgement, but I would like to know whether it was rejected due to the reliability of sources or a lack of sources.

Thanks, Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Awhellnawr123214, the specific reason is because there are some unsourced content; all statements should be cited so it can comply with the verifiability policy, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. If you managed to cite all statements/quotes, you can then resubmit it. Hope that helps! Toadette^Edit! 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit, I have been editing and have got to 50 sources. I will resubmit soon, but could you check it and tell me if it is good?

Thanks, Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

References added to Draft:Giry monad

You declined Draft:Giry monad a while ago, and I wanted to let you know that GrammyNoether (talk · contribs · count), the draft's creator, has added some references to it. Perhaps the draft is now publishable. The references look reliable, but I don't have the background in mathematics to be sure. Asking someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics to evaluate all the creator's submissions might be worthwhile. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Eastmain, I'm also not an expert in mathematics; I review drafts at random, checking of there is something that can guarantee a decline, like unsourced statements. I will also leave out the submission to an expert. Toadette^Edit! 11:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Completed Task On My CVUA

Sorry I didn't see that earlier. Ready for next thing now Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian, wait a few hours. I am currently busy handling my talk page content. Toadette^Edit! 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, have fun I guess. Do you have that much on your talk page? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, really that much (talk page was unusually busy in the last days, and also a thread on Commons). Toadette^Edit! 11:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian, I apologize for the inconvenience but the few hours will be extended until matters are solved. I should resolve the issues that are raising in the above threads. Maybe tomorrow may the next course be out. Toadette^Edit! 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

okay, great. Saw your failed RfA, now makes more sense why so much stuff Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian, it is now ready; do not reply here further, I am watching that page. Toadette^Edit! 14:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Some battenberg cake for you!

	Battenberg cake
	Go on, have a slice. It's good. Cremastra (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Meow meow!!!

Fanfanboy (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Baghabaro (15:54, 1 May 2024)

I can add my photo and my bio-data --Baghabaro (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Baghabaro, and welcome to Wikipedia. You can consider using our introduction process or ask questions at the teahouse. As for your question, it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself as well as uploading your personal photos (You can upload them in Commons, but uploading your personal photo can lead to the deletion of these photos). Hope that helps! Toadette^Edit! 06:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the courage to step up at RfA, and the wisdom to accept feedback and realize the time was not right. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Yeshayahu Folman

Hello, you declined my draft and I believe there is a mistake... you wrote its due to not adequately supported by reliable sources and if you will please take a moment and check, you will see the draft is. For example: The Volcani Institute, kotar - both major and very much reiliable sources. Ben-Gurion University - one of the top universities in Israel. Haaretz - One of the biggest news sites in Israel. the National Library of Israel - the name says it all I think.. I will resubmit is (it gives a button to do so) and I hope you can support this. Thank you, Shahar Navon new (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shahar Navon new! The article was specifically declined because it has unsourced statements which are contrary to the verifiability policy. Try to cite all statements with the relevant sources, or when the sources are not found (it doesn't matter whether it is in English or online), remove them. If you feel that your draft is complete, you can resubmit the draft by clicking the large blue button. Hope that helps! Toadette^Edit! 06:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Favorite Betrayal Sources

hey there, just writing to say that I had a misunderstanding on what was considered acceptable sources for wiki, which was forcing me to dig deep into obscure publications for mentions of the criterion. I've been told academic publications are perfectly fine to cite, so I'll be adding in higher quality citations along with a few minor edits and resubmit. Please let me know if this is incorrect. Also, please let me know if you would like me to contact you when I do resubmit, or if you would like for me to wait in the queue as normal.

thanks! jasavina Jasavina (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jasavina! You guessed that I may have declined your draft. Academic publications are generally reliable of course, especially peer reviewed work. Make sure that all statements are cited (citation templates and {{sfn}} can help) so that it meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is a must for all articles. Hope that helps! Toadette^Edit! 14:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sparrowmm (11:53, 2 May 2024)

My updated page has been deleted and has reverted back. Why has this happened? --Sparrowmm (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sparrowmm, can you clarify your statement. Who has reverted your edit and deleted your page? As always, you can read the introduction to Wikipedia. You can also read a page that can answer why your page was deleted. Hope that helps! Toadette^Edit! 14:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)